Bowie v. Johnson , 80 F. App'x 856 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6908
CHARLES B. BOWIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-145-2)
Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 14, 2003
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles B. Bowie, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles B. Bowie, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order, accepting the magistrate judge’s
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 § 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 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029,
1039 (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 Bowie 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