Opinion
No. 10-6347.
Submitted: February 10, 2011.
Decided: February 17, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:09-cv-00089-HMH).
Leon Eugene Grayson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Leon Eugene Grayson 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). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grayson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Grayson's motions to vacate his judgment and dismiss his sentence, for copies of transcripts at the Government's expense, and for "all Brady materials" at the Government's expense. 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.
We find that Grayson has waived appellate review of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation as to those issues after receiving proper notice of the consequences of failure to object. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621(4th Cir. 2007) ("[A] party . . . waives a right to appellate review of particular issues by failing to file timely objections specifically directed to those issues.").
DISMISSED