From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Booker v. Bodison

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 14, 2011
450 F. App'x 248 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 11-6909

10-14-2011

PATRICK L. BOOKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent - Appellee.

Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:10-cv-01098-HMH)

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Patrick L. Booker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court's order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Booker 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


Summaries of

Booker v. Bodison

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 14, 2011
450 F. App'x 248 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Booker v. Bodison

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK L. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKITHER BODISON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 14, 2011

Citations

450 F. App'x 248 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Booker v. Bodison

The Fourth Circuit dismissed Booker's appeal and denied a certificate of appealability. Booker v. Bodison,…