Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07343/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07343-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Haynes
Appellee
Patrick I. Obiorah
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7343

PATRICK I. OBIORAH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. HAYNES, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-01009-WLO)

Submitted: January 28, 2008 Decided: February 12, 2008

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick I. Obiorah, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7343 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/12/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Patrick I. Obiorah 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 Obiorah has not

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

appealability, deny Obiorah’s motion to appoint counsel, 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: 07-7343 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/12/2008 Pg: 2 of 2