Raymond McCarter v. Warden, Wateree Correctional Institute , 683 F. App'x 217 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7266
RAYMOND BRADLEY MCCARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF WATEREE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02697-BHH)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Bradley McCarter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Bradley McCarter 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(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 McCarter has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3