Court Opinion

ID: 145145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-29 00:29:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:54.614771
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.                                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    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

                                            2