UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6347
LEON EUGENE GRAYSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A.J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cv-00089-HMH)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leon Eugene Grayson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Leon Eugene Grayson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge 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). 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 Grayson has not made the requisite showing. *
*
We find that Grayson has waived appellate review of his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims by failing to file
specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation as
to those issues after receiving proper notice of the
consequences of failure to object. See United States v.
(Continued)
2
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny Grayson’s motions to vacate his judgment
and dismiss his sentence, for copies of transcripts at the
Government’s expense, and for “all Brady materials” at the
Government’s expense. 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
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[A] party . . .
waives a right to appellate review of particular issues by
failing to file timely objections specifically directed to those
issues.”).
3