Court Opinion

ID: 1009282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:53:38.612969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:17.085633
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-6766

PHILIP WARD,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PHILLIP E. MCLEOD, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-12-BC)

Submitted:   December 16, 2002         Decided:     December 19, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Langston Eppes, EPPES & PLUBLEE, P.A., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Phillip Ward 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 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).    We have

reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Ward has not satisfied either standard.      See

Ward v. McLeod, No. CA-01-12-BC (D.S.C. filed Apr. 18, 2002;

entered Apr. 19, 2002).    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