Court Opinion

ID: 174873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-07 17:50:12+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:32.195444
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 10-6839

KIM PURNELL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(3:09-cv-02424-RBH)

Submitted:   August 26, 2010                 Decided:   September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kim Purnell, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Kim    Purnell      seeks    to    appeal     the    district     court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.                               These

orders are       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    Purnell     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