Avila v. Beck , 234 F. App'x 156 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6441
    PEDRO RODRIGUEZ AVILA,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS BECK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-00387-JAB)
    Submitted: July 19, 2007                    Decided:   July 25, 2007
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Pedro Rodriguez Avila, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Pedro Rodriguez Avila, a state prisoner, 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
     (2000)
    petition.    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
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Avila 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6441

Citation Numbers: 234 F. App'x 156

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Wilkins

Filed Date: 7/25/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024