Gilchrist v. Hagan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Gilchrist v. Hagan

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6873

JIMMY G. GILCHRIST, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:06-cv-01236-MBS)

Submitted: September 28, 2007 Decided: October 11, 2007

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr. 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 Gilchrist has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, as well as Gilchrist’s motion to expand the

certificate, 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 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished