Gary Phillip Brogdon v. CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6236
GARY PHILLIP BROGDON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the
State of South Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (0:02-cv-00483-CWH)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 31, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Phillip Brogdon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary Phillip Brogdon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting summary judgment to Respondents and dismissing as untimely
Brogdon’s petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. 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 Brogdon 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

-- 2 of 2 --