Choice v. Eagleton, No. 06-6883 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6883 KEVIN L. CHOICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:03-cv-01999-RBH) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Choice, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kevin L. Choice seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The orders are not appealable judge issues 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). a certificate of 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Choice 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 -

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.