Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07549/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07549-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Bates
Appellant
McKither Bodison
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7549

MARCO BATES,

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 Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (0:08-cv-02273-HMH)

Submitted: December 31, 2009 Decided: March 1, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marco Bates, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7549 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marco Bates 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. 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). 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. See MillerEl 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 Bates 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: 09-7549 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 2