George Adams v. Anthony Padula ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6472
GEORGE MAURICE T. ADAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY PADULA, Warden; ALAN WILSON, Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
HENRY MCMASTER,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(3:11-cv-00031-DCN)
Submitted: January 31, 2013 Decided: March 8, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Maurice T. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
George Maurice T. Adams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as untimely 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)(A) (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
*
To the extent Adams also seeks to appeal the district
court’s post-judgment order denying his motion for counsel, we
lack jurisdiction to review that order. Adams did not file a
notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for counsel
and his informal appellate brief was not filed within the
applicable appeal period. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245
(1992) (holding that appellate brief may serve as notice of
appeal provided it otherwise complies with rules governing
proper timing and substance).
3
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 Adams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny his 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
4