Robert Taylor v. Bernard McKie ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7198
ROBERT TROY TAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BERNARD MCKIE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (5:13-cv-02239-RMG)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: March 30, 2015
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Troy Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Troy Taylor seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting in part 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 Taylor 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
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3