Butler v. Ozmint, No. 05-7873 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7873 THOMAS BUTLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-1884-8) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas Butler, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Butler s petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that constitutional the claims district is court s debatable and assessment that any of his dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 Accordingly, we Butler deny has not Butler s made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the for requisite a showing. certificate of 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.