Ronald Hendrickson v. Theodis Beck
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RONALD V. HENDRICKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Corrections, Secretary of North Carolina Department of
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02137-FL)
June 26, 2008
July 2, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald V. Hendrickson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ronald V. Hendrickson 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
Hendrickson has not made the requisite showing.
deny Hendrickson's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
contentions the court
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?