Darnell Hunter v. Warden, Lieber Correctional In

Filing 920100601

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7853

DARNELL L. HUNTER, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:08-cv-01050-CMC)

Submitted:

April 27, 2010

Decided:

June 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell L. Hunter, Assistant Attorney Assistant Attorney Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Darnell L. Hunter seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hunter's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. These orders judge issues are a not appealable of unless a circuit justice 28 or

certificate

appealability.

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial A of a

substantial 28

constitutional

right."

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).

prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Hunter has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of Accordingly, we deny Hunter's motion for a and dismiss the the appeal. and We legal

appealability oral argument

with

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2