Brown v. Bodison , 420 F. App'x 225 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7083
    REGINALD BROWN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    MCKITHER BODISON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.     Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
    District Judge. (4:09-cv-01755-PMD)
    Submitted:   December 7, 2010               Decided:   December 23, 2010
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Reginald Brown, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.                        
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)
    (2006).     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) (2006).                     When the district court denies
    relief    on    the    merits,    a     prisoner      satisfies        this    standard    by
    demonstrating         that     reasonable          jurists     would     find    that     the
    district       court’s     assessment      of      the    constitutional         claims    is
    debatable      or     wrong.      Slack    v.       McDaniel,      
    529 U.S. 473
    ,    484
    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003).
    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                           Slack, 
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .          We   have   independently           reviewed       the    record    and
    conclude       that    Brown      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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7083

Citation Numbers: 420 F. App'x 225

Judges: Motz, King, Davis

Filed Date: 12/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024