Muhammad Rahim v. Jon Ozmint
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MUHAMMAD ABDUL Bernard Myers,
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)
March 26, 2009
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
demonstrating assessment is of
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
appealability oral argument
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?