Higgs v. Padula ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7638
    ANTHONY T. HIGGS, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    A.J. PADULA, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (6:08-cv-00041-SB)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2010             Decided:   March 23, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony T. Higgs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony      Higgs,       Jr.,        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 Higgs 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: 097638

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Gregory

Filed Date: 3/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024