Ricky Murray v. E. Bazzle

Filing 920091203

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7401

RICKY LAFAYETTE MURRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (0:07-cv-03960-DCN)

Submitted:

November 19, 2009

Decided:

December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lafayette Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ricky Lafayette Murray seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 a (2006) circuit petition. justice or The order is not a

appealable

unless

judge

issues

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

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

Murray

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because presented the in facts the and We

legal

contentions

are

adequately

materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3