McEachern v. Kenworthy , 231 F. App'x 272 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6308
    CHRISTOPHER MCEACHERN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GEORGE KENWORTHY,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  James C. Dever III,
    District Judge. (5:06-hc-02104-D)
    Submitted: June 21, 2007                     Decided:   June 28, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher McEachern, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher    McEachern    seeks    to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    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 McEachern 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6308

Citation Numbers: 231 F. App'x 272

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 6/28/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023