Michael Alexander Bethea v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6982
MICHAEL ALEXANDER BETHEA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00613-MHL)
Submitted: October 11, 2011 Decided: October 31, 2011
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Alexander Bethea, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Alexander Bethea seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge’s final orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e) motion.* These orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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).
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 Bethea has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
* Bethea consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the
magistrate judge, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --