Case Name: Edson FURTADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; Maryland Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-03
Citations: 272 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 07-7712
Parties: Edson FURTADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; Maryland Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Edson FURTADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center; Maryland Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-7712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2008.
Decided: April 3, 2008.
Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 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 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.