Court Opinion

ID: 1017366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:03:43.520864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:10.439452
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6964

JAMES J. LEWIS, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-526)

Submitted: September 29, 2005             Decided:   October 11, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J. Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          James J. Lewis, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of

process issued by a state court 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 for claims

addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”        28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000).   As to claims dismissed by a district court

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”     Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).    We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Lewis has not satisfied either standard.

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

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.    See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

                               - 2 -
(2000). 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

                              - 3 -