Watkins v. Huffman , 117 F. App'x 278 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7400
    REGINA WATKINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA HUFFMAN, Warden, Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    District Judge. (CA-03-854)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 23, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Regina Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Regina Watkins, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the
    magistrate judge’s order denying relief on her petition filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).          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
    her 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   Watkins   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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7400

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 278

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/23/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024