Keith Graham v. Henry McMaster, No. 09-7291 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7291 KEITH BRADLEY GRAHAM, Petitioner Appellant, v. HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State South Carolina; WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, of Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (2:08-cv-03603-HFF) Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 10, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Isaac Diggs, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith court s judge order and judge adopting denying petition. or Bradley the seeks to appeal recommendation relief on his 28 of U.S.C. the the district magistrate § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue Graham absent a constitutional of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham 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 2 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.
