Richard Blankenship, Jr. v. R. Mitchell
Filing
402752985
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cv-00027-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998317618] [09-6640]
<![CDATA[
Case: 09-6640
Document: 19
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6640 RICHARD AARON BLANKENSHIP, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Correctional Institution, Respondent Appellee. Mountain View
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00027-GCM) Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 09-6640
Document: 19
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
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). have independently reviewed the record and conclude We that
Blankenship has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we We
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
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?
