Ricky Dingle v. Robert Koppel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RICKY DINGLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT KOPPEL; MARYLAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv-02750-AMD)
May 13, 2010
May 28, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ricky Dingle seeks to appeal the district court's
order denying relief on 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). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Dingle 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
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?