Kim Purnell v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-02424-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998419199] [10-6839]

Kim Purnell v. Warden, Ridgeland Correctional

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6839 Document: 7

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6839 KIM PURNELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:09-cv-02424-RBH) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kim Purnell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6839 Document: 7

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Kim Purnell seeks to appeal the district court's

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or These judge

issues a certificate of appealability. (2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

A certificate of appealability 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 independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

Purnell

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: 10-6839 Document: 7

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3