Barrick v. Ozmint , 114 F. App'x 115 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7498
DONALD LEE BARRICK, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN OZMINT, Director, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-03-2685)
Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 2, 2004
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Chief Deputy Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by
a district court 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 Barrick 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 -