# Brown v. Ozmint

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 12, 2007 · 232 F. App'x 360

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1023036

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Warden, MacDougall Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 12, 2007
- **Citations:** 232 F. App'x 360
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Williams, Wilkinson, Motz
- **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/1023036

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6200

JERRY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina; WARDEN, MacDougall Correctional
Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(3:06-cv-03013-DCN)

Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Jerry Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

as untimely 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/1023036. Public record. Not legal advice.