Ricks v. Young , 131 F. App'x 918 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6374
    LEWIS D. RICKS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    S. K. YOUNG,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-480)
    Submitted:     May 12, 2005                  Decided:   May 18, 2005
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lewis D. Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Lewis D. Ricks seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
    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
    , 336-38 (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 Ricks 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: 05-6374

Citation Numbers: 131 F. App'x 918

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 5/18/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023