Court Opinion

ID: 1023434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:37:52.749908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:13.125087
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 07-6453

WINFRED CAUSEY,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER;
WILLIAM WHITE, Warden of the Broad River
Correctional Institution,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cv-01768-TLW)

Submitted:   August 8, 2007                 Decided:   August 17, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winfred Causey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K.
McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Winfred Causey, 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 (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

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Causey 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

                                     - 2 -