Whitfield v. Hathaway , 274 F. App'x 280 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6276
    FRANKLIN WHITFIELD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Paul Trevor Sharp,
    Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00453-PTS)
    Submitted:   April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 24, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Franklin Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Franklin Whitfield seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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
    Whitfield 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 before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6276

Citation Numbers: 274 F. App'x 280

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 4/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024