Court Opinion

ID: 1019381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:34:42.78834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:23:17.687750
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7927

JULIUS SMILEY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution;
HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the
State of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-05-955)

Submitted:   April 26, 2006                  Decided:   May 16, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius Smiley, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Julius Smiley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

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) (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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional     claims   is   debatable      or   wrong   and   that    any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise

debatable. See 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 Smiley 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 -