Logan v. Warden

Filing 920071011

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6813

ROBERT STEVEN LOGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cv-03129-HMH)

Submitted:

September 26, 2007

Decided:

October 11, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Steven Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: Robert Steven Logan seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a 28

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that

A prisoner satisfies this standard by jurists would find that any

reasonable

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 Logan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny Logan's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

materials

would

decisional process. DISMISSED

- 3 -