Court Opinion

ID: 7215306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-25 00:51:05.178867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:16:59.492325
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
William Jackson Nicholson 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). We have reviewed the record and conclude for *177the reasons stated by the district court that Nicholson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Nicholson v. Rushton, No. CA-01-3318-9-19BG (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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.