Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07568/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Richard Bazzle
Appellee
Henry D. McMaster
Appellee
Brian William Scott
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7568

BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute; HENRY

D. MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 07-7598

BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution;

HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (8:05-cv-02690-GRA; 8:06-cv-02730)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008

Appeal: 07-7568 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/03/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian William Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,

Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7568 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/03/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Brian William Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,

granting summary judgment to Respondents, and denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

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 Scott has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeals. 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: 07-7568 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/03/2008 Pg: 3 of 3