Muhammad Rahim v. Jon Ozmint

Filing 920090407

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8423

MUHAMMAD ABDUL Bernard Myers,

RAHIM,

a/k/a

Gary

B.

Myers,

a/k/a

Gary

Petitioner - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Corrections, Director of South Carolina Department of

Respondent ­ Appellee, and JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:07-cv-04112-HFF; 1:07-cv-21565-ASG)

Submitted:

March 26, 2009

Decided:

April 7, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muhammad Abdul Rahim, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Muhammad Abdul Rahim, a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or

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 that Rahim 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