Joshua Monroe v. Leroy Cartledge , 627 F. App'x 192 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7540
JOSHUA ANDREW MONROE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (6:14-cv-03565-RMG)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Andrew Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Andrew Monroe seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, as
modified, 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
Monroe has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny
*We note that the timely filing of objections to a
magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve
(Continued)
2
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
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation.
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621–22 (4th Cir. 2007);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Because Monroe, a pro
se litigant, received notice of the consequences of failing to
object and yet failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
rejection of his claim that plea counsel was ineffective for
failing to pursue an alibi defense, Monroe has waived appellate
review of this claim. Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621-22.
3