Jackson v. South Carolina ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7542
SAMUEL KEITH JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ANTHONY PADULA, Warden of Lee
Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(0:06-cv-01837-TLW)
Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 21, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Keith Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster,
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Keith Jackson 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 Jackson 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