Gary Presley v. State of South Carolina , 573 F. App'x 277 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6177
GARY WAYNE PRESLEY, formerly 600249, 214298 Alpha,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; RONALDO MYERS, Director of the
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (8:13-cv-00952-RMG)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Wayne Presley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina;
William Henry Davidson, II, David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Wayne Presley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (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 Presley 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