UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7347
DENNIS J. JACKSON, a/k/a Dennis J. Jackson, Sr., a/k/a
Dennis James Jackson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00906-MBS)
Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis J. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis J. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition in
which he alleged that the trial court improperly admitted DNA
evidence against him, that he was provided ineffective
assistance of counsel, that he was deprived of a speedy trial,
and that he was deprived of a preliminary hearing. The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 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 Jackson 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