Turner v. Director Dept Corr, No. 05-7791 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7791 KIEL D. TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-260-7) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kiel D. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kiel D. Turner, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent a A certificate of appealability will substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that constitutional the claims district is court s debatable or assessment wrong and of his that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Turner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny a certificate of 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 -

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.