Case ID: f-appx_521/html/0225-01.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

Isiah JAMES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Respondent.
    No. 13-6309.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2013.
    Decided: May 29, 2013.
    Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Service, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isiah James, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) and 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny James’ motion for abeyance, deny as moot the Warden’s motion to dismiss the motion to stay, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.