Kevin Fletcher v. Richard Miller ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6394
    KEVIN DWAYNE FLETCHER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RICHARD MILLER;           ATTORNEY        GENERAL        OF       THE   STATE   OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00051-TDC)
    Submitted: August 30, 2018                                  Decided: September 14, 2018
    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Dwayne Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Dwayne Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Fletcher has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fletcher’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 this court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6394

Filed Date: 9/14/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021