Court Opinion

ID: 1012632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:48:01.070659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:12.526733
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7638

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DR. HELSEL; DR. PETRIVECH; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
03-2749-8-DKC)

Submitted: February 19, 2004              Decided:   February 25, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           William Allen Legg seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

without prejudice.   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

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 Legg has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Legg’s motions for injunction, habeas corpus

and discovery; 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 -