UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7928
CHRISTOPHER SPENCER, a/k/a Christopher L. Spencer,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (4:08-cv-02035-PMD)
Submitted: July 7, 2010 Decided: July 14, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Spencer seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for enlargement of time to file
objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge following the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Spencer has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
2
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