Kalief Haynes v. Warden McCormick Correctional

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6414 KALIEF HAYNES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent ­ Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-01377-JFA) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kalief Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kalief amended judge order and Haynes seeks the to appeal the district the § court's accepting recommendation his 28 of magistrate (2006) denying relief on U.S.C. 2254 petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a substantial constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When 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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haynes 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 3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4