Randolph Frazier v. South Carolina Department of C

Filing 920090123

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7940

RANDOLPH FRAZIER, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Defendants ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:04-cv-01385-GRA)

Submitted:

January 15, 2009

Decided:

January 23, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Randolph Frazier seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reopen, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), his case in which the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable 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." (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 Frazier 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 2