# Brown v. Bodison

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 23, 2010 · 420 F. App'x 225

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/181729

## Case

- **Full name:** Reginald BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Respondent—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 23, 2010
- **Citations:** 420 F. App'x 225
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, King, Davis
- **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/181729

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7083

REGINALD BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MCKITHER BODISON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cv-01755-PMD)

Submitted: December 7, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Reginald 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 (2006) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2006). 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). 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

(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 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

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/181729. Public record. Not legal advice.