Court Opinion

ID: 152535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-10 00:03:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:29.059780
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 10-6613

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH FRANCIS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(4:08-cv-03871-HFF)

Submitted:   July 27, 2010                  Decided:   August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Joseph Francis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Christopher     Joseph       Francis      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).               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 Francis 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

                                            2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3