Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06186/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Will James
Appellant
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Appellee
Warden of Lee Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6186

JEROME WILL JAMES,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN OF LEE 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (0:08-cv-04079-DCN)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Will James, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6186 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Will James seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that James 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

Appeal: 10-6186 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6186 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2010 Pg: 3 of 3