John Alexander v. Leroy Cartledge , 699 F. App'x 171 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6571
JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:16-cv-00600-HMH)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 17, 2017
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Douglas Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Alexander has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Alexander’s motions for a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Alexander’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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