UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6919
ALEXANDER BELL, a/k/a Sulyaman Al Islam Salaam, a/k/a
Sulyaman Al wa Salaam,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA CARE CENTER; ELDON WYATT; LIEUTENANT MCCLEASE;
SERGEANT CUMMINGS; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:08-cv-00906-GRA)
Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Shelton Webber Haile, William
Curry McDow, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN &
ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Albert Richard Pierce,
Jr., HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without
prejudice. 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
confined person 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 Bell 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