Nickerson v. Hardy ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6353
    LINDO NICKERSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    JAMES HARDY,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:07-hc-02043-BO)
    Submitted:   June 9, 2008                  Decided:    July 21, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lindo Nickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lindo Nickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.                    The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.          See 
    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.         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
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We    have   independently      reviewed   the    record     and    conclude     that
    Nickerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
    Nickerson’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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6353

Judges: Niemeyer, Traxler, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/21/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024