John Hart v. Warden, Broad River Corr. Inst


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:09-cv-00997-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998445261] [10-6906]

Download PDF
John Hart v. Warden, Broad River Corr. Inst Doc. 0 Case: 10-6906 Document: 6 Date Filed: 10/14/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6906 JOHN H. HART, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,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. (0:09-cv-00997-HMH) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Hart, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6906 Document: 6 Date Filed: 10/14/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: John H. Hart seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 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 Hart 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: 10-6906 Document: 6 Date Filed: 10/14/2010 Page: 3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?