Boekenoogen v. Mitchell , 354 F. App'x 766 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7620
    KENNETH MICHAEL BOEKENOOGEN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    R. DAVID MITCHELL, Supt.; THEODIS BECK,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.     James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (1:09-CV-00099-JAB-DPD)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2009              Decided:   December 4, 2009
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Michael Boekenoogen, Appellant Pro Se.    Clarence Joe
    DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth       Michael         Boekenoogen       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
    (2006) petition.           The order is not appealable unless a circuit
    justice     or    judge    issues       a    certificate      of      appealability.             
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).                  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).           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 Boekenoogen
    has   not     made   the     requisite         showing.          Accordingly,         we    deny
    Boekenoogen’s        motion      for    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: 09-7620

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 766

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/4/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023