Court Opinion

ID: 1016093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:43:26.861572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:57.172890
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-7727

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

J. AL CANNON; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY
MCMASTER,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-2527-6-08)

Submitted:   March 30, 2005                    Decided:   May 2, 2005

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia,       South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) for failure to exhaust state

court remedies.    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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 Michau

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 -