UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7292
WILLIE JUNIOR HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Warden of Perry
Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cv-01530-GRA)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Junior Hines, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie Junior Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to treat
Hines’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive and dismiss
the petition without prejudice on that basis.* 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 Hines 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
*
In June 2006, prior to Hines’ timely appeal in this case,
Hines filed a motion for authorization to file a second or
successive § 2254 petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000).
Hines raised the same issues presented in his second § 2254
petition. This Court denied authorization. See In re Hines, No.
06-461 (4th Cir. July 11, 2006) (unpublished order).
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -