Court Opinion

ID: 1021789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:12:11.292338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:02.408046
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7891

IVORY JOE TISDALE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THEODIS BECK,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

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-00555-JAB)

Submitted:   January 29, 2007          Decided:     February 12, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivory Joe Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

             Ivory Joe Tisdale seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing 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    Tisdale   has   not    made   the   requisite

showing.     Accordingly, we deny Tisdale’s motions for a certificate

of appealability and appointment of 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

                                      - 2 -