Adrian Allen v. Joseph McFadden , 624 F. App'x 89 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6885
ADRIAN A. ALLEN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (9:14-cv-01547-BHH)
Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 4, 2015
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian A. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian A. Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, 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
Allen 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