UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6309
ISIAH JAMES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (1:08-cv-02256-TLW)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE,
Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Isiah James, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(b) and 59(e) motion. 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
3
forma pauperis, deny James’ motion for abeyance, deny as moot
the Warden’s motion to dismiss the motion to stay, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4