Court Opinion

ID: 1026662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:10:18.863995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:15.142504
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6419

MICHAEL BROADNAX,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

VIRGINIA BEACH CORRECTIONAL CENTER; CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH,

                  Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:07-cv-00016-MHL)

Submitted:    September 16, 2008        Decided:   September 19, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Broadnax, Appellant Pro Se.     Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Michael Broadnax seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order dismissing without prejudice 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 Broadnax 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

     *
      The parties consented to referral to a magistrate judge for
final disposition under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

                                     2