McLean v. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6977
LORENZO M. MCLEAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-03-20-2)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lorenzo M. McLean seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief
on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may
not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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, ,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that McLean 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