Rochester v. SC Dept of Corrections , 241 F. App'x 148 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6124
JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SALLIE C. SMITH; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
OCONEE COUNTY,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (2:06-3012-HMH-RSC)
Submitted: June 29, 2007 Decided: July 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian Edward Rochester 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 Rochester has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability, deny the motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, 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. The motion to compel the district court to
rule on an application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
DISMISSED
- 2 -