Furman Thompson v. Warden McCormick Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-02103-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998779479]. Mailed to: Thompson. [11-7141]

Appeal: 11-7141

Document: 6

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7141

FURMAN THOMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
DIRECTOR JON OZMINT,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:10-cv-02103-DCN)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Furman Thompson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7141

Document: 6

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Furman Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to
properly exhaust his claims in state court.

The order is not

appealable

judge

unless

a

circuit

justice

certificate of appealability.

or

issues

a

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). 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)

relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

(2006).
a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When

Slack

the

district

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

court

standard

find

constitutional
529

denies

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85. In his informal brief, Thompson has failed to address
the district court’s dispositive finding that the claims raised
in his § 2254 petition were not properly exhausted.

Therefore,

Thompson has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s
ruling.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s
2

Appeal: 11-7141

Document: 6

motion

for

appeal.
legal
before

a

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

certificate

of

Page: 3 of 3

appealability

and

dismiss

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3