United States v. Vanvleet

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Vanvleet, 205 F. App'x 130 (4th Cir. 2006)
Michael, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

United States v. Vanvleet

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Michael Vanvleet seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vanvleet 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 adequately presented in the materials be *131 fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

*

Vanvleet has waived appellate review of two of his claims by failing to timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after receiving proper notice. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

Reference

Full Case Name
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Michael VANVLEET, Defendant-Appellant
Status
Unpublished