Court Opinion

ID: 1011332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:26:02.799228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:13.343386
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 03-6977

LORENZO M. MCLEAN,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-03-20-2)

Submitted:    August 14, 2003                 Decided:   August 22, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant.    Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Lorenzo M. McLean seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief

on 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,                 ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude      that   McLean    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