Stewart v. Johnson , 251 F. App'x 151 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6613
    NIKITA RAY STEWART,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:06-cv-00080)
    Submitted:   October 11, 2007             Decided:   October 16, 2007
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nikita Ray Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Nikita Ray Stewart seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
    order* denying relief on 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 Stewart 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 the magistrate
    judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6613

Citation Numbers: 251 F. App'x 151

Judges: Michael, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 10/16/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024