Elijah Jerome White v. State of South Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7101
ELIJAH JEROME WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY D. MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-02141-PMD)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elijah Jerome White, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Elijah Jerome White 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 White has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny White’s motion
for 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 --