John Bell v. Warden
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN JAMES BELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-00304-GRA)
October 2, 2008
October 10, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: John James Bell seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions to reconsider the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bell's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or The judge
issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 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 record showing. (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently not made reviewed the the
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because
and dismiss the appeal.
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. DISMISSED
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?