Court Opinion

ID: 1012811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:50:50.752039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:16.846617
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7428

RICHARD GRIFFIN,

                                             Petitioner -   Appellant,

          versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-677)

Submitted:   March 11, 2004                 Decided:   March 17, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Richard Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the

record    and    conclude      that   Griffin   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 -