Bradley v. Bodison , 406 F. App'x 720 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7536
    DAVID L. BRADLEY,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (0:09-cv-01856-TLW)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010           Decided:   December 29, 2010
    Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David L. Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David L. Bradley 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 (2006) petition.                                  The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.                  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).
    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) (2006).                   When the district court denies
    relief   on    the    merits,      a   prisoner     satisfies       this      standard    by
    demonstrating        that     reasonable         jurists    would       find     that    the
    district      court’s       assessment     of    the     constitutional         claims    is
    debatable     or     wrong.        Slack    v.    McDaniel,       
    529 U.S. 473
    ,    484
    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003).
    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          
    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85
    .         We     have   independently         reviewed       the    record    and
    conclude      that    Bradley      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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7536

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 720

Judges: Gregory, Agee, Keenan

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024