Jefferson v. Unnamed , 207 F. App'x 303 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6936
BRANDON CLARENCE JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNNAMED DEFENDANT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cv-00236-jlk)
Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 30, 2006
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Clarence Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Clarence Jefferson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing, in part, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
complaint as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, denying relief on
those claims, and dismissing the complaint. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or 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 Jefferson has not made the requisite
showing. We further find that any claims for damages under § 1983
are frivolous.
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
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -