Lance v. Lamanna , 193 F. App'x 235 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6945
    ROBERT M. LANCE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN LAMANNA, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (4:04-cv-02247-DCN)
    Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 3, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert M. Lance, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert M. Lance, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (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 Lance 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
    *
    We further reject Lance’s contention that the magistrate
    judge lacked jurisdiction to make a recommendation to the district
    court. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b) (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6945

Citation Numbers: 193 F. App'x 235

Judges: Williams, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 8/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024