Robert Verbal v. Ricky Anderson, No. 09-6421 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6421 ROBERT ALEXANDER VERBAL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICKY ANDERSON, Administrator, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00114-WO-WWD) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., Amanda Susan Zimmer, LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Alexander Verbal seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and denying petition. or accepting relief recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 U.S.C. this would claims showing by the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Verbal has not made the requisite showing. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate of Accordingly, we deny Verbal s appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 2