Isiah James, Jr. v. Warden Ridgeland Correctional
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999067463-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999072208-2]; denying Motion to dismiss appeal in part [999074853-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cv-02256-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999117472]. Mailed to: Isiah James. [13-6309]
Appeal: 13-6309
Doc: 21
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6309
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, Chief District
Judge. (1:08-cv-02256-TLW)
Submitted:
May 23, 2013
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
AGEE,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
May 29, 2013
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Appeal: 13-6309
Doc: 21
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 2 of 4
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 13-6309
Doc: 21
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Isiah James, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders
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 his Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(b) and 59(e) motion.
The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
not
issue
absent
“a
constitutional right.”
A certificate of appealability will
substantial
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 James has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
3
Appeal: 13-6309
Doc: 21
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 4 of 4
forma pauperis, deny James’ motion for abeyance, deny as moot
the Warden’s motion to dismiss the motion to stay, and dismiss
the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?