Court Opinion

ID: 1026791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:11:59.509798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:20.078851
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6928

BERNARD BAGLEY,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF SOUTH       CAROLINA;   WARDEN,    KERSHAW    CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,

                  Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-01470-PMD)

Submitted:   September 16, 2008            Decided:   September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district    court’s    order   accepting   the    recommendation    of   the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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 Bagley 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