Mark Madison Lowe v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6090
MARK MADISON LOWE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:17-cv-00292-RCY)
Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Madison Lowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mark Madison Lowe seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.*
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When
the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lowe has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Lowe’s motion for leave to use the original
record, deny Lowe’s motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --