# Brown v. McMaster

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 6, 2006 · 202 F. App'x 631

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020580

## Case

- **Full name:** Willie J. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina; State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 6, 2006
- **Citations:** 202 F. App'x 631
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Traxler, Shedd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020580

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6556

WILLIE J. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State
of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:05-cv-01064-DCN)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie J. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel
Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Willie J. Brown 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 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020580. Public record. Not legal advice.