Holmes v. Maynard , 82 F. App'x 80 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7188
    JOE L. HOLMES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GARY D. MAYNARD, Director; CHARLES M. CONDON;
    JON   E.  OZMINT,   Director;  HENRY   DARGAN
    MCMASTER,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-03-576-13AK)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2003              Decided:   December 4, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joe L. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Joe L. Holmes, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
    deny relief on Holmes’ petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000).    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   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    Holmes   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: 03-7188

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 80

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024