Terrance L. Wheeler v. Willie L. Eagleton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7053
TERRANCE L. WHEELER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE L. EAGLETON; HENRY MCMASTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-04-2348-0)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance L. Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

* The district court spelled the Appellant’s last name
“Wheller,” and the Appellant used that spelling in a district court
pleading. However, the South Carolina Department of Corrections
indicates the correct spelling is “Wheeler,” and that is the
spelling the Appellant has used in documents filed in this court.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Terrance L. Wheeler * seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the
Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and deny relief on
Wheeler’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Wheeler 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --