Court Opinion

ID: 1015886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:40:21.60084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:37.463931
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-7457

GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR.,

                                               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.   Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-818)

Submitted:   March 25, 2005                   Decided:   April 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            George Samuel Green, Jr., seeks to appeal from the

district    court’s      order    denying    relief    on       his   motion   for

reconsideration of the district court’s final order adopting the

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

Green’s 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); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (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 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 (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 Green 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 -