Charles B. Young v. Rushton, No. 07-6957 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6957 CHARLES B. YOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, McCI; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (9:06-cv-00369-GRA) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 23, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles B. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Young seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. not appealable unless a circuit issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice or The order is judge A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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 Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young has not made the requisite showing. Young s appeal is essentially duplicative of his appeal in No. 06-8049, in which we considered the district court s denial of Young s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we appealability and dismiss the appeal. argument because the facts deny a certificate of We dispense with oral and legal contentions are adequately - 2 - 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.
