Patterson v. Warden of Powhatan Correctional , 289 F. App'x 604 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6375
WILLIAM S. V. PATTERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:07-cv-00361-MHL)
Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William S. V. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden,
II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William S. V. Patterson seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See 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
Patterson 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
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
2