Court Opinion

ID: 147034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-05-24 19:23:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:03.120536
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 09-7664

JAMES GRAHAM,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF SOUTH     CAROLINA;   WARDEN   OF   EVANS   CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.     Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (0:08-cv-02793-MBS)

Submitted:   May 20, 2010                     Decided:   May 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James    Graham       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 (2006) petition.                                      The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.                   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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)      (2006).           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   Graham       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