Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06068/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oyama Lewis
Appellant
State of South Carolina
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6068

OYAMA LEWIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

(9:07-cv-01717-DCN)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oyama Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6068 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/29/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Oyama Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing 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 Lewis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. Additionally, we deny Lewis’ motions for production of

documents, to consolidate his appeal, and for an en banc hearing.

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: 08-6068 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/29/2008 Pg: 2 of 2