Court Opinion

ID: 1016787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:54:38.956993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:40.606969
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6205

JOHN A. RIDDICK,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-766-2)

Submitted:   July 27, 2005                 Decided:   August 3, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John A. Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            John A. Riddick seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 Riddick

has not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we deny leave to

proceed    on   appeal    in   forma   pauperis,    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 -