Maulick v. Johnson , 86 F. App'x 645 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7728
    RICHARD S. MAULICK,
    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. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-02-772-2)
    Submitted: January 29, 2004                  Decided:   February 9, 2004
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard S. Maulick, Appellant Pro Se. 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Richard S. Maulick seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny 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
    , 336-
    38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Maulick 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: 03-7728

Citation Numbers: 86 F. App'x 645

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 2/9/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023