Filed: Nov. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6857 RICHARD W. STOKES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1054-4-10BH) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Bef
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6857 RICHARD W. STOKES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1054-4-10BH) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003 Befo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6857
RICHARD W. STOKES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-1054-4-10BH)
Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard W. Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard W. Stokes seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the
final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, ,
123 S. Ct. 1029,
1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Stokes 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 contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2