-
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7753 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7753 ERIC VANCLEAVE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL STEPHAN, Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:20-cv-00099-RMG) Submitted: March 31, 2022 Decided: April 20, 2022 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Joseph Maye, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-7753 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Eric Vancleave seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Vancleave’s
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,
137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vancleave 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
Document Info
Docket Number: 20-7753
Filed Date: 4/20/2022
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/28/2022