Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06365/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06365-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Colie Rushton
Appellee
Patrick Saintil
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6365

PATRICK SAINTIL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden McCormick Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (8:07-cv-01096-CMC)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Saintil, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6365 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Saintil 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 (2000) petition. 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 Saintil 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: 08-6365 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 2 of 2