Christopher Francis v. South Carolina DPP , 534 F. App'x 220 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6440
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH FRANCIS, a/k/a Christopher J. Francis,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DPP,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (4:12-cv-00318-PMD)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Joseph Francis, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Joseph Francis seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2006) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration.
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 Francis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Francis’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
2
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