Court Opinion

ID: 1023330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:36:06.603321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:08.357235
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 07-6512

NEIL C. MATTHEWS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

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

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00173)

Submitted: July 24, 2007                        Decided:   July 31, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neil C. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Neil C. Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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).              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 Matthews has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -