Williams v. Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center , 120 F. App'x 488 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7583
FRANK M. NEFF,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION; WARDEN,
MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION-HAGERSTOWN,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
04-2327-RDB)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 4, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank M. Neff appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration of a prior order dismissing his
hybrid complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). To the extent Neff appeals the denial
of relief under § 2241, he may not do so unless a circuit judge or
justice issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of hte
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
A habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are
debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Neff
has not made the requisite showing. Therefore, we deny a
certificate of appealability as to Neff’s § 2241 claims.
To the extent that Neff appeals the denial of his motion to
reconsider the denial of relief on his § 1983 claim, we find no
error in the district court’s decision. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court as to Neff’s § 1983 claim. See Neff v. Warden,
Maryland House of Corr., No. CA-04-2327-RDB (D. Md. filed Sept. 17,
- 2 -
2004 & entered Sept. 20, 2004). 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -