Filed: Feb. 12, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7672 BOBBY LEE MCLEAN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00087-RAE) Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 12, 2009 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Lee McLean, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7672 BOBBY LEE MCLEAN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00087-RAE) Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 12, 2009 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Lee McLean, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7672
BOBBY LEE MCLEAN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
THEODIS BECK,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00087-RAE)
Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 12, 2009
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Lee McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Lee McLean seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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). 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 McLean 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
*
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent
of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 73.
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3