Purnell v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution

393 F. App'x 107
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 7, 2010
Docket10-6839
StatusUnpublished

This text of 393 F. App'x 107 (Purnell v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution) 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
Purnell v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, 393 F. App'x 107 (4th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Legrande Wise seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Respondent’s summary judgment motion on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying him a certificate of appealability. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the *108 denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wise 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.

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

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
393 F. App'x 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purnell-v-warden-ridgeland-correctional-institution-ca4-2010.