Case Name: John HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-05
Citations: 156 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 05-6886
Parties: John HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
John HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6886.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 5, 2005.
John Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John Hill, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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, 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hill's motions for oral argument and appointment of counsel. We note that the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Appeal number 05-6886 represents Hill's appeal from the magistrate judge's recommendation. That recommendation did not constitute a final appealable order, however, and hence that appeal is dismissed as interlocutory. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).