Lockhart v. State of South Carolina , 110 F. App'x 325 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6157
THADDEUS LOCKHART,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-0678-04-18BH)
Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: September 29, 2004
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thaddeus Lockhart, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thaddeus Lockhart, a South Carolina prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition
as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (“AEDPA”).
The district court granted a certificate of appealability
with respect to Lockhart’s claim that the district court erred in
finding that his petition was untimely under the AEDPA. We have
reviewed the record and find that the district court correctly
concluded that Lockhart’s petition was untimely filed.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s findings on this issue
on the reasoning of the district court. See Lockhart v. South
Carolina, No. CA-03-0678-04-18BH (D.S.C. filed Nov. 21, 2003 &
entered Nov. 24, 2003).
The district court declined to issue a certificate of
appealability on Lockhart’s remaining claims. In these claims, he
contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment
to the Respondents on procedural grounds without considering the
underlying merits of his petition and contends that the district
court erroneously failed to resolve a discovery dispute. Lockhart
cannot obtain a certificate of appealability as to these claims
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
- 2 -
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both
that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Lockhart has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Lockhart’s motion for a certificate
of appealability as to his remaining claims and dismiss the appeal
as to these claims.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -