Moore v. Beck , 273 F. App'x 268 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7600
    DAVID EDWARD MOORE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    THEODIS BECK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:07-cv-00540-NCT)
    Submitted:   March 17, 2008                 Decided:   April 8, 2008
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Edward Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David Edward Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order   accepting   the   recommendation   of   the   magistrate   judge,
    treating his “Motion to Reopen 2254 Petition on Nonadjudicated
    Claims” as a successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition, and
    dismissing it on that basis.    The order is not appealable unless a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 
    392 F.3d 683
    , 684
    (4th Cir. 2004).     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 Moore has not
    made the requisite showing.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
    - 2 -
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7600

Citation Numbers: 273 F. App'x 268

Judges: Motz, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 4/8/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024