Denial of relief on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

Timothy Wayne Abbott appealed the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeal was dismissed because Abbott failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required for a certificate of appealability.

Issuance of certificate of appealability

Timothy Wayne Abbott appealed the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The appeal was dismissed because Abbott failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required for a certificate of appealability.

Abbott v. Angelone | Court Opinion

Opinions

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6706

TIMOTHY WAYNE ABBOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-941-7)

Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 2, 2004

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Timothy Wayne Abbott seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding 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 Abbott 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 -