James Foster v. Robert Stevenson, No. 08-6524 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6524 JAMES O NEAL FOSTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Institution, Warden, Broad River Correctional Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (8:06-cv-03543-HFF) Submitted: November 14, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James O Neal Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James court s judge order and petition. or judge O Neal Foster accepting the denying relief issues absent constitutional prisoner reasonable to appeal recommendation on his 28 of the the U.S.C. § district magistrate 2254 (2000) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue seeks a substantial right. jurists appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional of 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny a Foster s motion for a de novo determination is denied. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are 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.