Orlando Smith v. Warden Broad River Corr. Inst., No. 08-8531 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8531 ORLANDO SMITH, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:07-cv-00327-RBH) Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 10, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Orlando Smith seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find that is 473, U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude We that have Smith independently has not reviewed made the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
