Birch v. Warden Okaloosa Correctional Institution , 282 F. App'x 276 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6903
UGANDA WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:05-cv-03231)
Submitted: February 19, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Uganda Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Uganda Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his
motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders
are 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 Wilson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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 -