Floyd v. Commonwealth of VA , 213 F. App'x 208 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7342
RASHAAD M. FLOYD, a/k/a Christopher Woods,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:05-cv-00458-MHL)
Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rashaad M. Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rashaad Maleke Floyd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the magistrate judge’s order1 denying his motion to reconsider the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.2 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); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Floyd 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
1
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
73.
2
To the extent Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his § 2254 petition, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
- 2 -