Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06259/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06259-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Jordan
Appellant
Henry McMaster
Appellee
Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6259

CHARLES JORDAN, a/k/a Charles Everette Jordan, a/k/a 

Charles E. Jordan,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HENRY MCMASTER, AG; WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-00051-CMC)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6259 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Jordan, a state prisoner, 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, which the district court construed as a 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Jordan 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 

Appeal: 10-6259 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6259 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3