Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El, f/k/a Antonio Edward McLean v. Director, Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6746
METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward
McLean,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00052-REP-RCY)
Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El, Appellant Pro Se. Alice
Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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
Supreme-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --