Tyrone Robinson v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional

Filing 920090730

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6715

TYRONE LORENZO ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:07-cv-03270-SB)

Submitted:

July 23, 2009

Decided:

July 30, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's judge order and accepting the recommendation his 28 of the § magistrate (2006)

denying

relief

on

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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Robinson's motion for bail pending appeal.

We deny

We also dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2