Garland v. Taylor ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6342
AHMAD CLARENCE GARLAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDSEL T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Director
SCDC,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (4:07-cv-00194-JFA)
Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ahmad Clarence Garland seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely
filed. 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 Garland 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
- 3 -