Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07525/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07525-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Wilford Bell
Appellant
Edgefield County
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7525 

CURTIS WILFORD BELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EDGEFIELD COUNTY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(6:07-cv-00913-DCN)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Wilford Bell, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7525 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Wilford Bell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 Bell 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

Appeal: 07-7525 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 2