Kenwood Bright v. Robert Stevenson , 678 F. App'x 114 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7317
    KENWOOD BRIGHT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (5:16-cv-00247-DCN)
    Submitted:   February 23, 2017              Decided:   February 27, 2017
    Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenwood Bright, Appellant Pro Se.   Donald John Zelenka, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenwood Bright 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.                               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
    Bright 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7317

Citation Numbers: 678 F. App'x 114

Judges: Davis, Diaz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 2/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024