Derrick Woods v. Warden of Broad River

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998834230-2]; denying for certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 9:10-cv-02726-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998899925]. Mailed to: Derrick Woods. [12-6350]

Appeal: 12-6350

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6350

DERRICK BENARD WOODS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
JOHN OZMINT, Director of SC Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:10-cv-02726-DCN)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Benard Woods, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6350

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Derrick
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Benard

accepting

denying

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the

§

district

magistrate

2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

Woods

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Woods has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

further deny Woods’ motion for transcript at government expense.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument
2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-6350

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3