Case ID: f-appx_70/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy E. BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6053.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 27, 2003.
    Decided July 25, 2003.
    Timothy E. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Timothy E. Braxton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order substantially accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The order is appeal-able only if a circuit judge of justice 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). An inmate satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both 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, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braxton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny Braxton’s motion for summary judgment and 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.