# Brown v. City of Virginia Beach

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 28, 2007 · 260 F. App'x 540

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1024647

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael John BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 28, 2007
- **Citations:** 260 F. App'x 540
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Michael, King, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1024647

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7402

MICHAEL JOHN BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00245-RBS)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael John Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Michael John Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without

prejudice because he failed to comply with the court’s order to pay

the required filing fee. 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 (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 Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for 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 before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1024647. Public record. Not legal advice.