Marco Bates v. McKither Bodison
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7549 MARCO BATES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cv-02273-HMH) Submitted: December 31, 2009 Decided: March 1, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marco Bates, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Marco Bates 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. not appealable of unless a circuit justice See 28 or The order is issues a
A certificate of appealability 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
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. See 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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?