Court Opinion

ID: 1015274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:30:26.32511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:10.276553
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7528

RICKY DARDEN,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

B. G. COMPTON,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-503-7)

Submitted:   January 13, 2005             Decided:   January 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Darden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Ricky Darden seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing the motion.         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 his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Darden has not made the

requisite     showing.   Accordingly,    we   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

                                 - 2 -