Sammie Goodwin v. Elaine Robinson

Filing 920100601

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7427

SAMMIE GOODWIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ELAINE ROBINSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:08-cv-02485-RBH)

Submitted:

April 20, 2010

Decided:

June 1, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sammie Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Sammie Goodwin 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 record (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the

conclude

Goodwin

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We grant Goodwin's motion to supplement

and dismiss the appeal.

his informal brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

materials

would

decisional process. DISMISSED 2