Felton Yawn v. Willie Eagleton
Filing
920100323
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8029
FELTON YAWN, Petitioner Appellant, v. WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden ECI, Respondent Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cv-01221-PMD)
Submitted:
March 16, 2010
Decided:
March 23, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felton Yawn, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Felton Yawn, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district magistrate court's judge order and adopting the on recommendation his 28 U.S.C. of the
denying
relief
§ 2241
(2006) petition. justice or judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability.
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." 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Yawn 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 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?