Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Eddy WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-22
Citations: 71 F. App'x 987
Docket Number: No. 03-6845
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Eddy WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 987–987

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Eddy WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6845.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
Decided Aug. 22, 2003.
Nelson Eddy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nelson Eddy Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge to construe his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it. The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322-, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.