Rodney Hairston v. J. Haynes
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY STEPHON HAIRSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00403-WO-PTS)
September 26, 2008
October 17, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Stephon Hairston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rodney Stephon Hairston seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a 28
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that
A prisoner satisfies this standard by 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 Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hairston'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.
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?