Charles Rogers v. Don Wood

Filing 920080430

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6250 CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DON G. WOOD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal 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-00269-JAB-PTS) Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Gene Rogers, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000) petition. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. issues 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 Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 - 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?