Scott v. Bazzle
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02690-GRA; 8:06-cv-02730)
February 21, 2008
March 3, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian William Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: Brian William Scott seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
granting summary judgment to Respondents, and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of
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." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.
- 3 -
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?