Randy Drummond v. State of South Carolina, No. 08-8068 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8068 RANDY DRUMMOND, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; TIM RILEY, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:07-cv-03031-TLW) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 12, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Drummond, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy Drummond seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief denying his appealable on his motion unless for a 28 U.S.C. v. Angelone, certificate of 369 (2006) reconsideration. circuit The justice certificate of appealability. Reid § 2254 or petition, orders judge and are not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). A absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and Drummond has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 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.
