Randy Drummond v. State of South Carolina

Filing 920090312

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8068

RANDY DRUMMOND, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; TIM RILEY, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution, Respondents ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:07-cv-03031-TLW)

Submitted:

February 12, 2009

Decided:

March 12, 2009

Before KING and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Drummond, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Randy Drummond seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying denying relief his on his for a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) The or petition, orders judge are and not a

motion unless

reconsideration. circuit justice

appealable

issues

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

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, 369 (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent A "a

certificate

appealability

will

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and has not made the requisite showing.

Drummond

Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3