Taylor v. Rushton
Anthony R. TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Anthony R. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (e)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution *304 al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 , 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor 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
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.