Case Name: Michael PAGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-20
Citations: 109 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 04-6045
Parties: Michael PAGE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
Michael PAGE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution; Henry D. McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6045.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2004.
Decided Sept. 20, 2004.
Michael Page, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Page seeks to appeal from the district court's order finding that his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) was successive and dismissing it without prejudice. 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 ap pealability 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Page has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent that Page's notice of appeal and appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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
By order filed June 2, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.