Baccus v. Burtt
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:06-cv-01912-DCN)
September 11, 2007
September 17, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: John Roosevelt Baccus 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 (2000) petition. The
order is 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 this 28 U.S.C. standard that by 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 Baccus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for
appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
contentions the court
- 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?