Edwards v. Cooper ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8057
    JULIUS KEVIN EDWARDS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ROY COOPER,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.     James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00528-JAB-DPD)
    Submitted:    January 19, 2010              Decided:   January 28, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Julius Kevin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Julius        Kevin    Edwards          seeks    to     appeal      the        district
    court’s    order       accepting         the    recommendation             of    the    magistrate
    judge and dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition as
    successive.           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 Edwards 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: 09-8057

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Davis

Filed Date: 1/28/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024