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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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