Wright v. Stone

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6103
ANDRIS WRIGHT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GLENN STONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00379-HMH)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andris Wright, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Andris Wright 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). 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 Wright 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
*
To the extent that Wright seeks to raise issues here not
first presented to the district court, we decline to consider
such issues. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3