Scott v. Bazzle, No. 07-7568 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7568 BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. No. 07-7598 BRIAN WILLIAM SCOTT, a/k/a Brian W. Scott, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02690-GRA; 8:06-cv-02730) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian William Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Brian William Scott seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to Respondents, and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). a certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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 - 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.
