Case ID: f-appx_128/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Calvin R. MALLORY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.T. ROBINSON, Supt.; Powhatan Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-8028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2005.
    Decided: May 5, 2005.
    Calvin R. Mallory, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Calvin R. Mallory seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the action was not filed on the proper form in violation of the court’s October 4, 2002, pre-filing injunction. The order is not ap-pealable 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 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, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir;2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mallory has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mallory’s motions to proceed in forma pau-peris, for “production of documents,” and appointment of counsel, 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