Augustine v. Warden, Kershaw, (4th Cir. 2007)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6970
FREDERICK AUGUSTINE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-02315-MBS)
Submitted: October 3, 2007 Decided: October 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Augustine, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Frederick Augustine seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.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 Augustine 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
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Supreme Court - Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.
See other documents that cite the same legislation
