Hamm v. State of SC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL E. HAMM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JEAN HOEFER TOAL, Chief Justice; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LAVERNE COHEN, Warden of the Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (0:07-cv-00826-HMH)
November 20, 2007
November 29, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Hamm, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael E. Hamm 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 Hamm has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 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?