Emmett Nall v. Warden Bazzle

Filing 920090826

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6314

EMMETT RAY NALL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BAZZLE, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent ­ Appellee, and HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:07-cv-01483-JFA)

Submitted:

August 20, 2009

Decided:

August 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

MICHAEL,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmett Ray Nall, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Emmett Ray Nall seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2006).

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. See 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 Nall has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a the appeal. and We legal

dismiss the

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED 2