Charles Rogers v. Don Wood
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DON G. WOOD, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02208-D)
June 19, 2008
July 14, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 construing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and dismissing it as unauthorized and successive. 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 Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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?