Ponder v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6462
    BOBBY PONDER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (3:07-cv-00778-RBH)
    Submitted:    October 22, 2008             Decided:   November 14, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bobby Ponder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Bobby       Ponder      seeks    to    appeal    the     district    court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on 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    Ponder       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: 08-6462

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 11/14/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024