Willie Hines v. Warden Tyger River Correctional Institute , 687 F. App'x 293 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6085
WILLIE JUNIOR HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:16-cv-03386-HMH)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Junior Hines, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Junior Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive and unauthorized
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 Hines 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 contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2