Court Opinion

ID: 1026083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:00:36.490564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:43.657883
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 08-6576

MICHAEL MCEVILY,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00594-RBS-JEB)

Submitted:     June 26, 2008                 Decided:   July 3, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael McEvily, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Michael McEvily seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition.       The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369

(4th Cir. 2004).    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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).   We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that McEvily 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

                                - 2 -