Wilson v. McKeller, 254 F. App'x 960

Wilson v. McKeller

254 F. App'x 960

4th Cir.

2007

Check Treatment

Docket

Fred FREEMAN v. DIRECTOR

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

960

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fred Freeman seeks to appeal the district court‘s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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 debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); ; . We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

John Cooke WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Warden MCKELLER; Jon Ozmint, Director; Gary Manigault, Officer; Partner, Defendants-Appellees

No. 07-6823

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Decided: Nov. 21, 2007. Submitted: Nov. 6, 2007.

John Cooke Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, Bradford Cary Andrews, Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Benjamin Albert Baroody, Bellamy, Rutenburg, Copeland, Epps, Gravely & Bowers, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Cooke Wilson appeals the district court‘s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find that Wilson has failed to demonstrate that his injuries, if any, were not de minimus in nature. Wilson also alleges that one of the correctional officers used a racial slur while assaulting him. While the alleged statement was deplorable, mere threats or verbal abuse, without more, do not state a cognizable claim under § 1983. See

Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir.1992) (citing ); see also . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. . 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.

AFFIRMED.

Charles Demont ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

No. 07-6888

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Decided: Nov. 21, 2007. Submitted: Nov. 15, 2007.

Charles Demont Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Demont Robinson seeks to appeal the district court‘s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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 debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); ; . We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson‘s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.