Court Opinion

ID: 1020401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:50:29.815098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:59.504677
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6751

MICHAEL ANTHONY DAMMONS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS R. CARROLL, Superintendent     Johnston
Correctional Institute,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District       Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.        James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00642-JAM)

Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 7, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM,
JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Michael Anthony Dammons 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 Dammons has not

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

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -