Stepp v. Cartledge, (4th Cir. 2010)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 10-6264

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6264

CHRISTOPHER DALE STEPP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (8:09-cv-00522-SB)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Dale Stepp, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Christopher Dale Stepp 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). 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 Stepp 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.