Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07875/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07875-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
McKither Bodison
Appellee
Charles M. Rynes
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7875

CHARLES M. RYNES,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MCKITHER BODISON, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(0:08-cv-02335-TLW)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Rynes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7875 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles M. Rynes 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 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 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). 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 Rynes 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: 09-7875 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2