Larry Hendricks v. Colie Rushton

Filing 920081229

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8055

LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge (3:03-cv-03201-DCN)

Submitted:

December 16, 2008

Decided:

December 29, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney Generals, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Larry Edward Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a (2000) circuit petition. justice or The order is not a

appealable

unless

judge

issues

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

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

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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). that We have independently has not reviewed the the record and

conclude

Hendricks

made

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3