Neff v. MCI-H , 99 F. App'x 479 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7955
FRANK M. NEFF,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MCI-H, WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
03-1861)
Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank M. Neff seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his complaint, in which Neff alleged that the
Maryland Division of Corrections miscalculated his release date.
Neff raised this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2000). The district court denied relief based on Neff’s
failure to exhaust state remedies.
To the extent Neff appeals the denial of relief under
§ 2241, he may not do so unless a circuit judge or justice issues
a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas
petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Neff has not made the
requisite showing.
To the extent that Neff appeals the denial of relief on
his § 1983 claim, we find no error in the district court’s
decision. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -