William Dawson v. Stan Burtt

Filing 920081211

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7842

WILLIAM DOUGLAS DAWSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN STAN BURTT, Respondent ­ Appellee, and HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:06-cv-03205-SB)

Submitted:

November 24, 2008

Decided:

December 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Douglas Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: William Douglas Dawson seeks to appeal the district court's judge order and accepting the recommendation his 28 of the § magistrate (2000)

denying

relief

on

U.S.C.

2254

petition. or judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2000).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

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 Dawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate We dispense with oral

of 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. DISMISSED

2