Steve Chadwick v. Frank Bishop, Jr. , 687 F. App'x 297 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6334
    STEVE CARL CHADWICK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    FRANK BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00416-RDB)
    Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Steve Carl Chadwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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. See 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 Chadwick has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6334

Citation Numbers: 687 F. App'x 297

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Agee

Filed Date: 4/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024