Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07796/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07796-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandy Gainey
Appellant
Anthony Padula
Appellee
South Carolina
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7796

SANDY GAINEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA; ANTHONY PADULA, Warden of the Lee 

Correctional Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (9:08-cv-03900-PMD)

Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandy Gainey, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7796 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandy Gainey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely 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. 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 Gainey has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 09-7796 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 2