Graddick v. Burtt , 251 F. App'x 822 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6566
    ARTHUR EUGENE GRADDICK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,
    Attorney General of the State of SC,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (9:06-cv-01404-RBH)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 24, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Arthur Eugene Graddick, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur Eugene Graddick 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 Graddick has
    not made the requisite showing.             Accordingly, we deny Graddick’s
    motion for 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: 07-6566

Citation Numbers: 251 F. App'x 822

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 10/24/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024