Switzer v. South Carolina Dept Corrections, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6185 JAMES EARL SWITZER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South

Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-03-3198-9-20BG)

Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: May 25, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Earl Switzer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Earl Switzer, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

  (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.§ 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district courtÂ’s resolution of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See

Miller-El v. Cockrell

, 537 U.S. 322, 337- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel

, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee

, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Switzer 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

---