Travis Hipp v. Michael Stephan ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7095
TRAVIS F. HIPP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL STEPHAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (5:17-cv-02297-TMC)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Glenn Yarborough, III, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM G. YARBOROUGH, III,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis F. Hipp 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
(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 Hipp has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hipp’s 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
2