Opinion

Brown v. Ozmint

  • 234 F. App'x 144
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jul 24, 2007
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Motz, Gregory, Wilkins
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.5%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7995

WILLIE B. BROWN, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General for South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(2:06-cv-00241-RBH)

Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie B. Brown, III, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie B. Brown, III 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 -

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.