Middleton v. Ballard , 356 F. App'x 643 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-8092
    KEVIN RAY MIDDLETON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID BALLARD,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.  John T. Copenhaver,
    Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-00771)
    Submitted:    September 25, 2009            Decided:   December 14, 2009
    Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Ray Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Dawn Ellen
    Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin       Ray      Middleton       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 Middleton
    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: 08-8092

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 643

Judges: Duncan, Agee, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/14/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024