Jones v. South Carolina ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6101
NATHANIEL H. JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hampton
Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel
Hampton,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 05-6114
NATHANIEL H. JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hampton
Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel
Hampton,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 05-6143
NATHANIEL H. JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hampton
Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel
Hampton,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-1768-2-13)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 16, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel H. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster,
Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Nathaniel H. Jones, a
South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding
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 for claims addressed by a district
court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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
- 3 -