Short v. Eagleton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
OTIS LYNN SHORT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN WILLIE EAGLETON; Attorney General of the Carolina, HENRY State MCMASTER, of South Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02915-GRA)
April 19, 2007
April 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Otis Lynn Short, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Otis Lynn Short, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his habeas petition.* Short also seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The
orders are not appealable 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 absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would that this 28 U.S.C. standard that by his
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Short 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
Though Short brought his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), some of his claims were recharacterized and considered by the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). - 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?