Hayward Rogers v. Leroy Cartledge , 544 F. App'x 211 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6912
    HAYWARD L. ROGERS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    LEROY CARTLEDGE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
    (2:12-cv-01858-TMC)
    Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hayward Leon Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III,
    Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Hayward L. Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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)
    (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 Rogers has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly, we
    deny Rogers’ motions for a certificate of appealability and for
    appointment of counsel 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6912

Citation Numbers: 544 F. App'x 211

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Thacker, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/25/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023