James Blakely v. Warden, Broad River Correction

Filing 920090514

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7665

JAMES GATEWOOD BLAKELY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-6294

JAMES GATEWOOD BLAKELY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (4:07-cv-02012-MBS)

Submitted:

April 24, 2009

Decided:

May 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Gatewood Blakely, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: James Gatewood Blakely 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 (2006) petition and the district court's order denying his motion for

reconsideration. justice or judge

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

U.S.C. standard

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

find the

that

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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 Blakely has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal

certificate dispense

appealability oral argument

appeal. and

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3