UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6474
JIMMY G. GILCHRIST, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden of Allendale
Correctional Institution; JOHN OZMINT,
Director of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY
DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General for South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-04-21895-6)
Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 14, 2005
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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
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 on the reasoning of the district court that
Gilchrist has not made the requisite showing. See Gilchrist v.
Hagan, No. CA-04-21895-6 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2005). Accordingly, we
deny Gilchrist’s motions to expedite the appeal and for the
appointment of counsel, 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
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -