Tory v. Bassett , 119 F. App'x 512 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7225
    MICHAEL E. TORY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    K.   J.   BASSETT,   Warden,     Keen   Mountain
    Correctional Center,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-03-746)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2004            Decided:   January 13, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael E. Tory, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Michael E. Tory appeals from the denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition by the district court.*         An appeal may not
    be taken to this court 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 jurists of
    reason 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); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude that Tory has
    not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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
    *
    Pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c), the parties consented to
    exercise of the district court’s jurisdiction by a United States
    Magistrate Judge.
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7225

Citation Numbers: 119 F. App'x 512

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 1/13/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023