Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07712/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07712-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7712

EDSON FURTADO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; CLIFTON T. PERKINS HOSPITAL CENTER; MARYLAND

DEPT. OF HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv02472-RWT)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7712 Doc: 9-2 Filed: 04/03/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edson Furtado, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal

the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition and his motion to alter or amend. The orders are

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 petitioner 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 Furtado has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. Furtado’s motion for

appointment of counsel 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

Appeal: 07-7712 Doc: 9-2 Filed: 04/03/2008 Pg: 2 of 2