UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6503
RONALD O. RANDALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
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. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-477-2)
Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald O. Randall, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald O. Randall seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief
on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may
not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029,
1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941
(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Randall 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
*
We find that Randall has waived appellate review of all
claims, except for the district court’s disposition of his
prosecutorial misconduct claim, by failing to file specific
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice of the consequences of failure to object. See Wright
v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3