UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7462
RANDOLPH STEPHEN BAIRD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
APRIL CHAPMAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; KIT CARSON CORRECTIONAL
CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL HENRY MCMASTER, (actually named as
The Attorney General of the State of: South Carolina, Henry
McMaster); JOE WOLFE, Future Custody, South Carolina
Department of Parole and Probation, Agent,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01217-JFA)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Stephen Baird, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Stephen Baird 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)(A) (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 Baird has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4