Kenneth Boekenoogen v. Mitchell et al., No. 09-7620 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7620 KENNETH MICHAEL BOEKENOOGEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. DAVID MITCHELL, Supt.; THEODIS BECK, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-CV-00099-JAB-DPD) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Michael Boekenoogen, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth court s order district Michael Boekenoogen accepting seeks the to appeal recommendation the of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable constitutional 28 this jurists would claims by appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of showing U.S.C. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that by assessment court is of (2006). demonstrating any district denial a A that of the 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 Boekenoogen has not made Boekenoogen s the requisite motion dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before for a showing. certificate Accordingly, of we appealability deny and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.