LaTroy Kennerly v. State of South Carolina

Filing 920090701

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6368

LATROY FLONN KENNERLY, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH INSTITUTION, CAROLINA; WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL

Respondents ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00736-CMC)

Submitted:

June 15, 2009

Decided:

July 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LaTroy Flonn Kennerly, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: LaTroy court's judge order and Flonn Kennerly the seeks to appeal of the district

adopting

recommendation on his 28

the §

magistrate (2006)

denying

relief

U.S.C.

2254

petition. or judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 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. 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 Kennerly 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 2