T. Terell Bryan v. Warden McFadden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7864
T. TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terance Bryan, a/k/a Terrence
Terell Bryan, a/k/a Terence Terell Bryan,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCFADDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(5:14-cv-03627-TMC)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
T. Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without
prejudice. 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
Bryan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny Bryan’s motion for
injunctive relief, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3