Short v. Eagleton , 224 F. App'x 296 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7916
OTIS LYNN SHORT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN WILLIE EAGLETON; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (8:05-cv-02915-GRA)
Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Otis Lynn Short, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel
Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Otis Lynn Short, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and denying relief on his habeas petition.*
Short also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The
orders are 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 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 Short 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
*
Though Short brought his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000), some of his claims were recharacterized and
considered by the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).
- 2 -