UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6488
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-03235-GRA)
Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Thomas Wagner seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge to dismiss the action without prejudice and dismissing his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion as successive.
Wagner also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district
court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural
ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th
Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Wagner has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Wagner’s “petition for pre-enforcement
review.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3