Alexander Bell v. Columbia Care Center, No. 09-6919 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6919 ALEXANDER BELL, a/k/a Sulyaman Al wa Salaam, Sulyaman Al Islam Salaam, a/k/a Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLUMBIA CARE CENTER; ELDON WYATT; LIEUTENANT SERGEANT CUMMINGS; DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, MCCLEASE; Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:08-cv-00906-GRA) Submitted: October 29, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and GREGORY November 17, 2009 and SHEDD, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Shelton Webber Haile, William Curry McDow, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Albert Richard Pierce, Jr., HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Alexander Bell seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 28 issues U.S.C. a absent constitutional a 2254 certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue § of (2006) petition appealability. without 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the § 2253(c)(2) denial of (2006). a A confined person satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists constitutional would claims by find the that any district assessment court is of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Bell 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 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.
