Landry v. Wheeler , 193 F. App'x 261 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6679
    HOLLY LANDRY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    BARBARA J. WHEELER,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:05-cv-00120-MHL)
    Submitted:    July 26, 2006                  Decided:   August 8, 2006
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Holly Landry, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Holly Landry seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s*
    order denying relief on her 
    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 Landry has not
    made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny Landry’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, 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 proceed before a United States
    magistrate judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6679

Citation Numbers: 193 F. App'x 261

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/8/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024