Sizemore v. Rubenstein
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALEX SIZEMORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JIM RUBENSTEIN, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:05-cv-00241)
October 24, 2007
November 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul S. Detch, Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Robert David Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Alex Sizemore 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 (2000) petition. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
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 Sizemore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before
contentions the court
- 2 -
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?