UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6421
MUHAMMAD ABDUL RAHIM, a/k/a Gary Bernard Myers,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-00908-TMC)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muhammad Abdul Rahim, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Abdul Rahim, a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition, and denying
reconsideration of that order. The orders are 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 Rahim 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3