UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7373
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRYONTO MCGRIER, a/k/a Rodney Jones,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-93-196; CA-02-33-2)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terryonto McGrier, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terryonto McGrier seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying
relief in McGrier’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. That motion
alleged the Government fraudulently filed a response to McGrier’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion resulting in the denial of McGrier’s
claims. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a §
2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability is required to appeal the district
court’s order denying McGrier’s post-judgment motion. See Reid v.
Angelone, F.3d , 2004 WL 1119646, at *4 (4th Cir. May 19,
2004)(No. 03-6146). 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 McGrier has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -