Jimmivious Jones v. THE STATE; WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6932
JIMMIVIOUS JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE; WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:08-cv-02083-GRA)
Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmivious Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, William Edgar
Salter, III, Assistant Attorneys General, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jimmivious Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 Jones 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 --