Titus Geer v. Tim Riley

Filing 920100305

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8142

TITUS C. GEER, a/k/a Titus Geer, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TIM RILEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:09-cv-01769-CMC)

Submitted:

February 25, 2010

Decided:

March 5, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus C. Geer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Titus C. Geer, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 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). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

U.S.C. standard

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

find the

that

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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 Geer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate We dispense with oral

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

Although Geer filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006), the district court properly construed it as one appropriately filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006).

*

2

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3