Isaiah Walker v. Cecelia Reynolds , 698 F. App'x 152 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7516
ISAIAH F. WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (2:15-cv-02174-RBH)
Submitted: August 28, 2017 Decided: October 10, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaiah F. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 Walker 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
2