James Strickland v. Warden, Lieber Corr Inst

Filing 920091021

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6902

JAMES S. STRICKLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:07-cv-04103-GRA)

Submitted:

October 15, 2009

Decided:

October 21, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James S. Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James court's judge order and S. Strickland the seeks to appeal of the the § district magistrate (2006)

accepting

recommendation his 28

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 Strickland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a We also for

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * deny Strickland's pending motions, including his

motions

To the extent Strickland seeks to raise issues not previously asserted in the district court, we decline to consider such issues. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

*

2

appointment general facts

of

counsel, We

for

a

preliminary oral

hearing,

and

for the the the

relief. legal before

dispense

with are

argument

because in aid

and

contentions the court

adequately argument

presented not

materials

and

would

decisional process. DISMISSED

3