Case ID: f-appx_224/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otis Lynn SHORT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Willie EAGLETON; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 06-7916.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2007.
    Decided: April 24, 2007.
    Otis Lynn Short, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Otis Lynn Short, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his habeas petition. Short also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Short has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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. 
      
       Though Short brought his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), some of his claims were recharacterized and considered by the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).