Isiah James, Jr. v. Levern Cohen

Filing 402795073

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:07-cv-4163 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998336580] [09-6884]

Case: 09-6884

Document: 16

Date Filed: 05/11/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6884 ISIAH JAMES, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEVERN COHEN, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (9:07-cv-04163) Submitted: April 27, 2010 KING, Circuit Judges, Decided: and May 11, 2010 Senior

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 09-6884

Document: 16

Date Filed: 05/11/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Isiah James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the 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 or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 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). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the record and

conclude

James

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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