Douglas v. South Carolina ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6393
BURNICE DOUGLAS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina; WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans
Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-02-2166)
Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Burnice Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Burnice Douglas, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Habeas corpus relief may be granted only
if the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law as determined by
the Supreme Court, or the state court’s decision was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). This Court may
only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The relevant inquiry is whether “‘reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Douglas 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3