UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6600
MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MICKEY E. RAY, Warden of FCI-Edgefield; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 04-6601
MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAN DOVE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-3405-17-BE; CA-00-3546-17-BE)
Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 3, 2004
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael O. DeVaughn, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael O. DeVaughn seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions in
actions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).* The court dismissed
the actions as successive. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69
(4th Cir. 2004) (holding that appeal from the denial of a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion in a habeas action requires a certificate of
appealablity). 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, 336-38 (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 DeVaughn has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability.
To the extent DeVaughn’s notice of appeal and informal
brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
*
The actions were originally filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000), and have been consolidated on appeal.
- 3 -
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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
- 4 -