Ronald Blanding v. Warden of McCormick Correctional , 589 F. App'x 106 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7217
RONALD BLANDING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(8:12-cv-01179-MGL)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Blanding, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Blanding 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. See 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 Blanding 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3