Howard v. Ballard ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7259
    JOSEPH EUGENE HOWARD,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.     Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00112-FPS-JSK)
    Submitted:    January 7, 2010                 Decided:   January 15, 2010
    Before WILKINSON and      MICHAEL,    Circuit    Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Eugene Howard, Appellant Pro Se.    R. Christopher Smith,
    Charleston, West Virginia; Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney
    General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph       Eugene      Howard       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 Howard 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: 09-7259

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/15/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024