Mathis v. Bodison , 358 F. App'x 485 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6915
    DONALD RAY MATHIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    MCKITHER BODISON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (3:08-cv-02313-GRA)
    Submitted:    December 17, 2009             Decided:   December 28, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald Ray Mathis, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka,
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Ray Mathis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition.                            The
    orders    are    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     Mathis     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: 09-6915

Citation Numbers: 358 F. App'x 485

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Agee

Filed Date: 12/28/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024