Frazier v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections , 308 F. App'x 683 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7940
    RANDOLPH FRAZIER,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General of South Carolina,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:04-cv-01385-GRA)
    Submitted:    January 15, 2009               Decided:   January 23, 2009
    Before MOTZ and      SHEDD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randolph Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
    Assistant  Attorney   General,  Donald John   Zelenka,  Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Randolph Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion to reopen, under Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(6), his case in which the district court denied 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 Frazier 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-7940

Citation Numbers: 308 F. App'x 683

Judges: Hamilton, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 1/23/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023