Ronald Dingle v. Warden Stevenson

Filing 920100503

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8100 RONALD DONALD DINGLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN STEVENSON, Broad River Correctional Institution, 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-01159-PMD) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Donald Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald court's order Donald Dingle relief seeks his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006) denying on 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C. or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dingle has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a the appeal. and We legal dismiss the with because facts 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?