Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07842/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07842-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tavo Glenn
Appellant
Jon Ozmint

Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7842

TAVO GLENN, a/k/a Tavo T. Glenn, a/k/a Tavo Tarrell Glenn,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

JON OZMINT,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (8:08-cv-03078-PMD)

Submitted: April 15, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tavo Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7842 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tavo Glenn 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. 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. 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 Glenn 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: 09-7842 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 2