Court Opinion

ID: 1012929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:52:42.639292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:20.096488
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 03-7867

JOHN RICHARD TURNER, JR.,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

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

                                                   Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-291-2)

Submitted:    March 25, 2004                    Decided:   March 31, 2004

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Richard Turner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           John Richard Turner, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).*   An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 proceeding 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 Turner 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 the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2000).

                                   - 2 -