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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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