Augustine v. Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Augustine v. Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, 251 F. App'x 825 (4th Cir. 2007)

Augustine v. Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Fredex’ick Augustine 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 appeal-able 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Augustine has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a *826 certifícate 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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Frederick AUGUSTINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and Court of Common Pleas, Respondent
Status
Unpublished