Cook v. Johnson , 207 F. App'x 316 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7024
    GEORGE LUTHER COOK, III,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director     of   the   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. (2:05-cv-00427-JBF)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2006           Decided:   November 30, 2006
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George Luther Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    George Luther Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and 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.        
    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 Cook 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: 06-7024

Citation Numbers: 207 F. App'x 316

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 11/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023