George Luther Cook, Iii v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7561
GEORGE LUTHER COOK, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00610-JBF)
Submitted: June 5, 2008 Decided: June 16, 2008
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Luther Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond
Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
George Luther Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 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 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. 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 Cook
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 of 2 --