Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 F. App'x 493

Faircloth v. Walker

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 4, 2003

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-06-04

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2003

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Muth v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2003-06-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Jimmy Faircloth, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Fair-cloth has not made the requisite showing. * See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

¶2 DISMISSED.

*

¶3 To the extent Faircloth seeks to raise issues not properly presented to the district court, we find they are waived. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding claims raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).

/65/fappx/493 · .json · Public domain