Larry Williams v. Warden, McCormick Correctional , 590 F. App'x 290 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7661
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
CAROLYN F. WILLIAMS; GORDON JENKINSON; MR. SHULER,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-03341-MGL)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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). 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 Williams 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3