Christian v. Beck ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7984
GARCEL LAVAR CHRISTIAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THEODIS BECK, Secretary of NC DOC; LANDAR CORPENING,
Superintendent of Foothills CI,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00051-NCT-PTS)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hoang Van Lam, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Garcel Lavar Christian 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 Christian
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