James Pipes v. David Ballard, No. 10-6029 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6029 JAMES FRANKLIN PIPES, Petitioner Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-00037-REM-JSK) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Franklin Pipes, Appellant Pro Se. Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, Appellee. Dawn Ellen Warfield, West Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James court s judge order and judge accepting denying petition. or Franklin the relief seeks to appeal recommendation on Pipes 28 of the the U.S.C. district magistrate § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue Pipes absent constitutional a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). A of a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); debatable. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pipes has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with Accordingly, we deny Pipes motion for a appealability oral argument and dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.