Graham v. McMaster

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7291
KEITH BRADLEY GRAHAM,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina; WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(2:08-cv-03603-HFF)
Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 10, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Isaac Diggs, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Bradley Graham seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting 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). 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 Graham 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