Parks v. Boyette

114 F. App'x 573
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 23, 2004
Docket04-6954
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 F. App'x 573 (Parks v. Boyette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parks v. Boyette, 114 F. App'x 573 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Darían Wayne Parks appeals a district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Parks’s 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 *574 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Parks’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 F. App'x 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-boyette-ca4-2004.