Anderson v. Hathaway , 285 F. App'x 59 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6204
JAMES CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00348-RAE)
Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Christopher Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Christopher Anderson seeks to appeal the orders of
the magistrate judge* denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition and his motion to reconsider. The orders are 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 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. 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 Anderson has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 2 -