Burgess v. South Carolina , 157 F. App'x 623 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7242
    SANDY BURGESS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General for South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (CA-05-1714-MBS)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 7, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sandy Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Sandy Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
    as successive his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).                        An
    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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    both     that   the   district     court's      assessment      of    his
    constitutional       claims       is   debatable       or    wrong     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-
    38 (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 Burgess 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: 05-7242

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 623

Judges: Motz, Traxler, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/7/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024