UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7665
JAMES GATEWOOD BLAKELY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-6294
JAMES GATEWOOD BLAKELY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (4:07-cv-02012-MBS)
Submitted: April 24, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Gatewood Blakely, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Gatewood Blakely 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
and the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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 Blakely 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