Hartford Best v. Warden Bodison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-01381-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998602288] Mailed to: Hartford R. Best. [11-6187]

Appeal: 11-6187

Document: 14

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6187

HARTFORD R. BEST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-01381-RBH)

Submitted:

May 26, 2011

Decided:

June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hartford R. Best, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6187

Document: 14

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hartford R. Best seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing Best’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely
filed.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

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
Best

has

not

made

the

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

Appeal: 11-6187

before

Document: 14

the

court

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3