Evans v. Smith , 202 F. App'x 606 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6747
    GREGORY THEOPHILUS EVANS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RAYMOND SMITH, Superintendent,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District      Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.       James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:05-cv-00663-WWD)
    Submitted: September 28, 2006              Decided: October 10, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory Theophilus Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory Theophilus Evans 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     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 Evans 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.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6747

Citation Numbers: 202 F. App'x 606

Judges: Niemeyer, Traxler, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/10/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024