Clifford Thompson v. Jon Ozmint

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6881

CLIFFORD THOMPSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

JON OZMINT, SC Department of Corrections; WARDEN OF BROAD
RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-02794-HMH)

Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 31, 2012

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Clifford Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and

denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We deny Thompson’s motion for transcripts, and we dispense with

2
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