Graves v. Padula

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6650

MAURICE GRAVES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

A. J. PADULA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00540-PMD)

Submitted: August 11, 2010 Decided: September 10, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Maurice Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Maurice Graves appeals 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 order

denying his motion for reconsideration. Insofar as Graves

appeals that part of the order for which the district court

granted a certificate of appealability, we have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in

part for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Graves v. Padula, No. 3:09-cv-00540-PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2010).

We deny Graves’ motion to expand the certificate of

appealability. 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. 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 conclude Graves

fails to make the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and deny the motion to

expand the certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

2
in part. We also deny Graves’ motion for appointment of

counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3