Scott Boger v. S. K. Young

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00175-sgw-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998601110]. Mailed to: Scott M. Boger. [10-7687]

Appeal: 10-7687

Document: 18

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7687

SCOTT M. BOGER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
S. K. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:10-cv-00175-sgw-mfu)

Submitted:

May 18, 2011

Decided:

May 31, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott M. Boger, Appellant Pro Se.
John Michael Parsons,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7687

Document: 18

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Scott M. Boger seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

Accordingly,

that
we

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Boger

deny

has

not

the

requisite

motion

Boger’s

made

for

a

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

showing.

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 10-7687

Document: 18

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

Page: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3