William Cudd v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:08-cv-02421-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998422033] [09-8028]

William Cudd v. Jon Ozmint

Doc. 0

Case: 09-8028 Document: 5

Date Filed: 09/10/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8028 WILLIAM A. CUDD, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS; CUSTODIAN UNION COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. OF

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:08-cv-02421-RBH) Submitted: August 3, 2010 Decided: September 10, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Cudd, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-8028 Document: 5

Date Filed: 09/10/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: William A. Cudd 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. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. at 484-85. that We have Cudd independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

requisite

showing.

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

2

Case: 09-8028 Document: 5

Date Filed: 09/10/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3