Mark McCoy v. Warden Cartledge , 691 F. App'x 98 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6137
MARK MCCOY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-00638-HMH)
Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie
Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark 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 (2012)
petition and the court’s orders denying his motions 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 McCoy has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McCoy’s motion for 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