Barritt v. Ballard ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7951
ROBERT MARTIN BARRITT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN DAVID BALLARD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cv-00043-REM-JS)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Martin Barritt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Martin Barritt seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is 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 Barritt 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
*
We decline to consider claims Barritt seeks to raise in
this court, which claims were not previously raised first in the
district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3