Robert Barritt v. Warden David Ballard
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MARTIN BARRITT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN DAVID BALLARD, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00043-REM-JS)
January 14, 2010
January 22, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Martin Barritt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Robert court's judge order and Martin Barritt the seeks to appeal of the district
recommendation his 28
petition. or judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
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 Barritt has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal
appealability oral argument
appeal. * and
We decline to consider claims Barritt seeks to raise in this court, which claims were not previously raised first in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
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?