Court Opinion

ID: 1020079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:45:35.331879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:52.873863
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6409

DEON D. JENKINS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JON OZMINT, SCDC Director; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(0:05-cv-01762-HFF)

Submitted:   July 19, 2006                 Decided:   August 3, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deon D. Jenkins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          Deon D. Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice.

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 Jenkins 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 -