Rodger Dale Mitchell v. Karen Pszczolkowski

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-12156 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000061257]. Mailed to: Rodger Dale Mitchell HUTTONSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER P. O. Box 1 Huttonsville, WV 26273-0000 Zachary Aaron Viglianco. [16-7434]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7434 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/13/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7434 RODGER DALE MITCHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:15-cv-12156) Submitted: March 31, 2017 Decided: April 13, 2017 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodger Dale Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary Aaron Viglianco, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7434 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/13/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Rodger Dale Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (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 Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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?