Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

141 F. App'x 233

Pleasant v. True

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided August 26, 2005

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2005-08-26

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Rose v. Lee

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2005-08-26

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for discovery. 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant 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.

¶2 DISMISSED

*

¶3 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).

/141/fappx/233 · .json · Public domain