Donald Bates v. L.R. Thomas ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6569
DONALD BATES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
L.R. THOMAS, 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-00411-BHH)
Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Bates, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed
by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and 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); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306,
1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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
Bates has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
2
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
3