Court Opinion

ID: 1022115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:17:28.872887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:38.330713
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-8051

THEODORE MORRIS FOUST,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JOSEPH HALL,

                                               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-00439-WLO)

Submitted:   March 22, 2007                 Decided:   March 30, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Morris Foust, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin William Keller,
Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Theodore    Morris   Foust   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 Foust has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny Foust’s motions

for   a   certificate   of   appealability,      and     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 -