Isiah James, Jr. v. Warden Ridgeland Correctional
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file Rule 60(b) motion [998679448-2]. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-02256-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998716510]. Mailed to: Isiah James. [10-7601]
Appeal: 10-7601
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/04/2011
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7601
ISIAH JAMES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-02256-TLW)
Submitted:
October 25, 2011
Decided:
November 4, 2011
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE,
Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Appeal: 10-7601
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/04/2011
Page: 2 of 4
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 10-7601
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/04/2011
Page: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Isiah James, Jr., 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, and
denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
These
orders are
judge
issues
not
a
appealable
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
unless
of
circuit
justice
appealability.
or
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
a
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
of
a
When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this
standard
by
demonstrating
that
reasonable
jurists
would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
484
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
Cockrell,
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and
conclude
that
Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record
James
has
not
made
the
requisite
showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
We deny James’ motion for leave to file a motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
3
We dispense
Appeal: 10-7601
Document: 12
Date Filed: 11/04/2011
Page: 4 of 4
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 process.
DISMISSED
4
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?