Sumter v. Warden Lieber Correctional Institution , 696 F. App'x 98 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6203
ERIC SUMTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
ALAN WILSON,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-00739-HMH)
Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Sumter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, William
Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Sumter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting 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 Sumter has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sumter’s motion for a new trial and for
appointment of counsel, 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