Ronnie Mitchell v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6377
RONNIE MITCHELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (6:05-cv-01637-CMC)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: June 1, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Mitchell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and dismissing it as untimely, as well as the
district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration of that order. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a
district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural
grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the
petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.
2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell
has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --