Ballon v. Wood
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RANDY SCOTT BALLON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DON WOOD, Superintendent; Secretary of Corrections, THEODIS BECK, Respondents - Appellees.
RANDY SCOTT BALLON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; DONALD WOOD, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00393-JAB; 1:06-cv-00980)
November 20, 2007
November 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Scott Ballon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Randy Scott Ballon seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Ballon has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeals. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are
- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 4 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?