Banks v. Johnson , 180 F. App'x 470 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7764
KEVIN L. BANKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-370-2)
Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin L. Banks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin L. Banks seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and his
subsequent motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Banks has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -