York v. South Carolina
Appeal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 07-4413

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

Space Space

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (1) Tab Overlap Cited By (3) Right End
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6402

JAMES O. YORK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA, State of; HENRY MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (9:05-cv-00883-TLW) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James O. York, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
James O. York 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 York has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny York's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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

[End Page 2]

Statistics

This case has been viewed 7 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?