Benjamin Jones v. R. Mitchell
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN MAURICE JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00248-GCM)
April 30, 2008
June 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Benjamin Maurice Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or a certificate of appealability. See 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. 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a We dispense
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
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?