Albert Brockman-El v. North Carolina Department of C
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT FITZGERALD BROCKMAN-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ALVIN W. KELLER, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00633-WO-LPA)
March 30, 2010
April 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Fitzgerald Brockman-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Albert district court's Fitzgerald order Brockman-El the seeks to appeal of the the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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
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 Brockman-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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?