Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07853/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07853-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darnell L. Hunter
Appellant
Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7853

DARNELL L. HUNTER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (4:08-cv-01050-CMC)

Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell L. Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7853 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Darnell L. Hunter seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on Hunter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. 

These orders are 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 Hunter has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hunter’s motion for 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: 09-7853 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 2