Robert Barritt v. Warden David Ballard, No. 09-7951 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7951 ROBERT MARTIN BARRITT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN DAVID BALLARD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00043-REM-JS) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Martin Barritt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert court s judge order and 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 constitutional prisoner the relief a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue Barritt accepting denying petition. or Martin a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is 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 Barritt has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because * the the we deny appeal. * facts and a We legal We decline to consider claims Barritt seeks to raise in this court, which claims were not previously raised first in the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3