McPherson v. Haynes , 230 F. App'x 306 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6238
STANFORD EL CHRISTOPHER MCPHERSON, JR., a/k/a
Chris Rattis,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. HAYNES, Administrator,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:05-hc-00820-D)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary
Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., seeks to appeal
the district court’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. 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 McPherson 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 -