Lucas v. Eagleton ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7025
JOHNNY LEE LUCAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General
of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 03-7199
JOHNNY LEE LUCAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General
of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-1679)
Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Lee Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Lee Lucas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and his
motion to alter or amend (Appeal No. 03-7025), as well as the
district court’s order denying him a certificate of appealability
(Appeal No. 03-7199). 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 for claims
addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Lucas has not made the requisite showing. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
3