Splawn v. Padula , 283 F. App'x 107 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6335
    WILLIAM SPLAWN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    A. J. PADULA, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (2:07-cv-00047-JFA)
    Submitted:   June 26, 2008                   Decided:   July 2, 2008
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Splawn, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
    General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Splawn 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
     (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 Splawn 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: 08-6335

Citation Numbers: 283 F. App'x 107

Judges: King, Duncan, Wilkins

Filed Date: 7/2/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024