Bryant Moore v. JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7765
BRYANT MOORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 06-7874
BRYANT MOORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; HENRY 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. (8:06-cv-00990-GRA)

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Submitted: December 22, 2006 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryant Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 Moore has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion seeking issuance of 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 of 3 --