Fredrick v. Beck
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RALPH FRANKLIN FREDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00303-GCM)
January 17, 2008
January 28, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ralph Franklin Fredrick seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.
or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 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. See 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
Fredrick has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Fredrick's motion for 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.
- 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?