Hitter v. Hagan, No. 06-6768 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6768 MICHAEL HITTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HAGAN, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Warden; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SOUTH CAROLINA, Department of Probation Parole and Pardon, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00204-TLW) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hitter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Hitter, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district magistrate court s judge order and accepting dismissing petition as successive. the his recommendation 28 U.S.C. § of 2254 the (2000) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and Hitter 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 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.