Ross Abido v. David Ballard, No. 09-6717 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6717 ROSS BONIFACIO ABIDO, Petitioner Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Facility, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00341) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ross Bonifacio Abido, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Charleston, West Virginia; Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ross order court s judge Bonifacio accepting and denying petition. or judge seeks to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues absent a a constitutional prisoner the relief certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue Abido substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing 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 Abido has not made the requisite showing. motion for appointment of Accordingly, we deny Abido s counsel, 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.