Patrick Booker v. McKither Bodison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-01098-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092624]. Mailed to: Patrick Booker. [13-6259]

Appeal: 13-6259

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6259

PATRICK L. BOOKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:10-cv-01098-HMH)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6259

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Patrick L. Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and its subsequent order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

unless
of

a

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

The
judge

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir.

2004).

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) (2006).

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

debatable

or

assessment

wrong.

Slack

of

the

constitutional

v.

McDaniel,

529

U.S.

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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Booker has not made the requisite showing.
2

Accordingly, we

Appeal: 13-6259

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3