Rasnick v. Director of Virginia Department of Corrections ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6491
    JAMES MICHAEL RASNICK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR    OF     VIRGINIA     DEPARTMENT      OF
    CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent -   Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-04-435-3)
    Submitted:   July 22, 2005                   Decided:   August 11, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Michael Rasnick, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    James Michael Rasnick seeks to appeal the magistrate
    judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).*            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
    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   Rasnick   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
    *
    This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
    the parties under 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)(1) (2000).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6491

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 8/11/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024