UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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