Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08135/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Jackson
Appellant
Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8135

PHILLIP JACKSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (6:09-cv-00419-RBH)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8135 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/23/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Jackson 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: 09-8135 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/23/2010 Pg: 2 of 2