Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06402/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6402

JAMES O. YORK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; HENRY MCMASTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(9:05-cv-00883-TLW)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James O. York, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-6402 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/06/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James O. York seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that York has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We also deny York’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

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

Appeal: 06-6402 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/06/2007 Pg: 2 of 2