UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6902
JAMES S. STRICKLAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:07-cv-04103-GRA)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James S. Strickland 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 Strickland
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We also
deny Strickland's pending motions, including his motions for
*
To the extent Strickland seeks to raise issues not
previously asserted in the district court, we decline to
consider such issues. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993).
2
appointment of counsel, for a preliminary hearing, and for
general relief. 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