Langley v. Johnson , 117 F. App'x 270 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7333
    LONNELLE A. LANGLEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-222)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 22, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lonnelle A. Langley, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Lonelle Langley seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
    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 habeas corpus
    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 a district
    court   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 Langley 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7333

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 270

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024