Branch v. Director of Virginia Department of Corrections , 210 F. App'x 229 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7134
    DWAYNE N. BRANCH, a/k/a Rashid El-Abdullah,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR    OF        VIRGINIA     DEPARTMENT   OF
    CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:04-cv-00072-MHL)
    Submitted:    December 6, 2006             Decided:    December 18, 2006
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dwayne N. Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dwayne N. Branch 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 Branch 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
    *
    Pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)(2000), the parties consented
    to adjudication by the magistrate judge.
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7134

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 229

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024