Lewis Fielder v. Robert Stevenson, III

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6363
LEWIS WAYNE FIELDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Broad River Correctional
Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00412-JMC)
Submitted: September 25, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lewis Wayne Fielder seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders granting Respondent’s motion to strike Fielder’s
affidavit seeking to enhance the state court record, and
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Fielder has not made the requisite showing. We further
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
2
striking Fielder’s affidavit. See Landrum v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d
905, 923-24 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); Ward v. Hall,
592 F.3d 1144, 1162 (11th Cir. 2010) (same); Eckstein v.
Kingston, 460 F.3d 844, 852 (7th Cir. 2006) (same).
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
3