Charles Jordan v. Henry McMaster, No. 10-6259 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6259 CHARLES JORDAN, a/k/a Charles E. Jordan, Charles Everette Jordan, a/k/a Petitioner - Appellant, v. HENRY MCMASTER, INSTITUTION, AG; WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:09-cv-00051-CMC) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Jordan, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s magistrate (2006) order judge and petition, U.S.C. § 2241 unless a appealability. denying which (2006) circuit accepting the relief recommendation on district petition. justice the court The or his 28 of U.S.C. construed the § 2254 as a order not issues judge is a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 28 appealable of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record Jordan has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and conclude that Accordingly, we deny dismiss because 2 and the the appeal. facts and We 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.
