Torrence v. Ozmint

Dec 11, 2008
08-6522
Versions:305 F. App'x 55

Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Weston Johnson, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Richard Harcourt Fulton, Sardar Mujeeb Shah-Khan, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas J. Ziko, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Randy L. Thomas appeals the district court‘s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Olshausen, No. 3:07-cv-00130-GCM, 2008 WL 2468738 (W.D.N.C. filed June 16, 2008) & (entered June 17, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED.

Thomas J. Torrence, Appellant Pro Se. John William McIntosh, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorneys General, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas J. Torrence 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 (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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Torrence has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Torrence‘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.

Rion O‘Neal Latimore, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Milton Orrett Cole 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