UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7899
JABARI DOZIER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (3:08-cv-03371-PMD)
Submitted: February 24, 2010 Decided: March 8, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jabari Dozier, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy
Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jabari Dozier, 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252
F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Dozier has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Dozier’s
motion seeking a disciplinary hearing transcript. 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