Dorsey v. Burtt

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8054

THOMAS DORSEY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

STAN BURTT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-01865-HFF)

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 20, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Thomas Dorsey 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 (2006) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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) (2006). 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 Dorsey 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