Case ID: f-appx_274/html/0267-01.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

Jesse James PRITCHARD, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 07-6996.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 28, 2008.
    Decided: April 21, 2008.
    Jesse James Pritchard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesse James Pritchard, Jr., 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 ap-pealability. 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pritchard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motion to compel prison officials to return legal documents is denied. 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.