Turuk Saunders v. Warden of Broad River Prison , 705 F. App'x 194 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6674
TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 17-7227
TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cv-01724-RMG)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: December 6, 2017
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Turuk Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General,
Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Turuk Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 Saunders has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeals. 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
3