Lesesne v. Eagleton , 82 F. App'x 90 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7457
MICHAEL J. LESESNE, a/k/a Michael Evan Briggs,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-03-2181-9-23)
Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Lesesne, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Lesesne seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his
successive petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for lack
of jurisdiction. 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 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 Lesesne has not made the requisite showing. To the
extent Lesesne’s notice of appeal and appellate brief could be
construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254
motion, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, U.S. , 2003
WL 22232622 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2003) (No. 03-6548).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3