Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07422/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Hardy
Appellant
Henry McMaster
Appellee
Tim Riley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7422

CLARENCE HARDY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TIM RILEY; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of

the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(4:06-cv-01570-HFF)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 07-7422 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hardy 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 Hardy has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Hardy’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

and 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: 07-7422 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 2