Crowe v. Warden of Perry Corr Inst. , 651 F. App'x 193 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6301
DANIEL L. CROWE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF PERRY CORR INST,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-03831-BHH)
Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel L. Crowe, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Daniel L. Crowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order
and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition. The order and judgment 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
Crowe 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