Isiah James, Jr. v. Warden Ridgeland Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7601
ISIAH JAMES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-02256-TLW)
Submitted: October 25, 2011 Decided: November 4, 2011
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE,
Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Isiah James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and
denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny James’ motion for leave to file a motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We dispense

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --