Young v. Rushton , 267 F. App'x 216 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6957
CHARLES B. YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE L. RUSHTON, McCI; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (9:06-cv-00369-GRA)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 23, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles B. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH
CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal of 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 Young has not made the requisite showing. Young’s appeal is
essentially duplicative of his appeal in No. 06-8049, in which we
considered the district court’s denial of Young’s motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -