Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07928/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07928-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
McKither Bodison
Appellee
Christopher Spencer
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7928

CHRISTOPHER SPENCER, a/k/a Christopher L. Spencer,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (4:08-cv-02035-PMD)

Submitted: July 7, 2010 Decided: July 14, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7928 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/14/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Spencer seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion for enlargement of time to file 

objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge following the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). 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 Spencer has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

Appeal: 09-7928 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/14/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 09-7928 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/14/2010 Pg: 3 of 3