-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6470 QUINCY MARQUETTE MCCOY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cv-03747-HMH) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quincy Marquette McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Quincy Marquette McCoy 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(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 McCoy 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 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 10-6470
Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 773
Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis
Filed Date: 12/27/2010
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024