Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06062/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Anthony Fuller
Appellant
Lewis D. Smith
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6062

CHARLES ANTHONY FULLER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LEWIS D. SMITH,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00324-WO-LPA)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Anthony Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6062 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Anthony Fuller 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). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Fuller has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Fuller’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 10-6062 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6062 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 3 of 3