Court Opinion

ID: 1024057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:27:34.190826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:53.753789
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 07-6384

WILLIAM C. MCKENNEDY,

                                                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

MR. FAULKENBERRY; ATTORNEY       GENERAL     OF   THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                                  Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cv-00641-HMH)

Submitted:   October 5, 2007                 Decided:    October 25, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. McKennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           William C. McKennedy 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     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 McKennedy 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

      *
      In some places in the record Appellant’s last name is spelled
McKennedy, and in other places it is spelled McKinnedy. We have
retained the spelling used on the district court’s docket.

                                 - 2 -