Hunter v. Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution , 380 F. App'x 247 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7853
DARNELL L. HUNTER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:08-cv-01050-CMC)
Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darnell L. Hunter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Darnell L. Hunter seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on Hunter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend.
These orders are 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252
F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Hunter has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hunter’s motion for 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