Cochrane v. Burtt ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6718
    JEROME COCHRANE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STAN BURTT, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:06-cv-00325-GRA)
    Submitted:   August 17, 2007                 Decided:   August 28, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerome Cochrane, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerome Cochrane seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge
    and dismissing as untimely 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 Cochrane 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: 07-6718

Judges: Wilkinson, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/28/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024