Eron Tascoe v. Warden of Lee Correctional , 699 F. App'x 261 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6720
ERON JAMES TASCOE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF DORCHESTER; ST.
GEORGE SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-00235-CMC)
Submitted: November 6, 2017 Decided: November 13, 2017
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eron James Tascoe, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Wilson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eron James Tascoe seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing as time-barred Tascoe’s 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 Tascoe 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