Dozier
v.
Lee

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitMar 8, 2010
369 Fed. Appx. 443 (4th Cir. 2010)

No. 09-7899.

Submitted: February 24, 2010.

Decided: March 8, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:08-cv-03371-PMD).

Jabari Dozier, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., McKay, Cauthen, Settana Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Jabari Dozier, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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). 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, 484-85, 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 Dozier has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Dozier's motion seeking a disciplinary hearing transcript. 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.