Charles Claude Ramsey v. Kimberly H. Runion
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998951254-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00396-RBS-FBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998982764]. Mailed to: Charles Claude Ramsey. [12-7579]
Appeal: 12-7579
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/16/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7579
CHARLES CLAUDE RAMSEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY H. RUNION, Director
Behavioral Rehabilitation,
of
the
Virginia
Center
for
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00396-RBS-FBS)
Submitted:
November 13, 2012
Decided: November 16, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Claude Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se.
John H. McLees, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7579
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/16/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Charles
court’s
order
Claude
accepting
Ramsey
in
seeks
part
to
and
appeal
rejecting
the
in
district
part
the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his
28
U.S.C.
§ 2241
(2006)
petition,
which
the
district
court
treated as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006).
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a
certificate
(2006).
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A)
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) (2006).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
When the district court denies
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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.
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Ramsey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
2
Appeal: 12-7579
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/16/2012
Pg: 3 of 3
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
3
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?