Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07586/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George T. Hagan
Appellee
Henry McMaster
Appellee
John K. Moore
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7586

JOHN K. MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, South Carolina

Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00084-SB)

Submitted: May 2, 2008 Decided: May 12, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John K. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7586 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/12/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John K. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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 Moore 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: 07-7586 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/12/2008 Pg: 2 of 2