Rhyne v. Warden, Tyger River Correctional Institution ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6876
RANDY RHYNE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (4:07-cv-03147-HMH)
Submitted: October 29, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Rhyne, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Rhyne 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 Rhyne has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Rhyne’s motions for a
transcript, for appointment of counsel, and to appoint an
investigator. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3