Barry Runyans v. Colie Rushton, No. 08-7200 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7200 BARRY KEITH RUNYANS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:07-cv-01600-HFF) Submitted: February 23, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry Keith Runyans, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Barry court s Runyans accepting order Keith the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the order appealable denying unless reconsideration. a circuit certificate of not a A will not judge are issues appealability or orders 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. justice The issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude We that have Runyans independently has not made reviewed the the requisite 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.
