John Walker v. Jon Ozmint, No. 09-6576 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6576 JOHN WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director SCDC; WARDEN, McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (0:08-cv-00241-TLW) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Walker, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Walker seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. A appealability justice will not or The order is judge issue 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude that We have Walker independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, we deny Walker s motion for 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.