Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06101/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06101-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Jenkins
Appellant
Warden Robert Stevenson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6101

GEORGE JENKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(9:09-cv-00057-RBH)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6101 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

George Jenkins 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. 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Jenkins’s motion to appoint counsel, 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: 10-6101 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2