Milton Byrle Lee v. GEORGE HINKLE, Greenville Correctional Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6508
MILTON BYRLE LEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE HINKLE, Greenville Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:04-cv-00908-MHL)
Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton Byrle Lee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
73.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Milton Byrle Lee, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
magistrate judge’s order 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. 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
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Lee has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Lee’s motion for 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 --