Case Name: Theotis Marquette JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-17
Citations: 131 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 05-6085
Parties: Theotis Marquette JOHNSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 420–420

Head Matter:
Theotis Marquette JOHNSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.
No. 05-6085.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 12, 2005.
Decided: May 17, 2005.
Theotis Marquette Johnson, Appellant pro se.
Jennifer Ransom Franklin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Theotis Marquette Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of Johnson's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless 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, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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