Young v. Burtt

326 F. App'x 205

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2009
• Docket: 08-8241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8241

WILLIE YOUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STAN BURTT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (6:07-cv-02893-CMC)

Submitted: June 3, 2009 Decided: June 16, 2009

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Willie Young 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 Young 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