UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8423
MUHAMMAD ABDUL RAHIM, a/k/a Gary B. Myers, a/k/a Gary
Bernard Myers,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of
Corrections,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, Florida Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-04112-HFF; 1:07-cv-21565-ASG)
Submitted: March 26, 2009 Decided: April 7, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muhammad Abdul Rahim, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Abdul Rahim, a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (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 Rahim 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
3