Jenkins v. Ozmint , 193 F. App'x 238 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6409

Citation Numbers: 193 F. App'x 238

Judges: Michael, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024