Felton Yawn v. Willie Eagleton

Filing 920100323

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8029 FELTON YAWN, Petitioner Appellant, v. WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden ECI, Respondent Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?