Jody Ward v. Warden Lieber Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999108853-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999080772-2] Originating case number: 0:11-cv-03277-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999172257]. Mailed to: Ward. [13-6518]

Appeal: 13-6518

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6518

JODY LYNN WARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT, Director SCDC,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:11-cv-03277-RBH)

Submitted:

July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

August 14, 2013

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jody Lynn Ward, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 13-6518

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-6518

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/14/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jody Lynn Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2006).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

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

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny Ward’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

because

the

facts
3

and

legal

are

Appeal: 13-6518

Doc: 15

adequately

Filed: 08/14/2013

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4