Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07315/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07315-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Anthony Elliott
Appellant
State of North Carolina
Appellee
Selma Townes
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7315

MICHAEL ANTHONY ELLIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SELMA TOWNES; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

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. (1:06-cv-00457-JAB)

Submitted: January 31, 2008 Decided: February 7, 2008

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7315 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Elliott 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 (2000) petition. The

order is 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 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 Elliott has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Elliott’s motion

for 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

Appeal: 07-7315 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 2