Elder Leach v. Warden, Lieber Correctional ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6861
    ELDER PRESCOTT LEACH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:19-cv-01726-JMC)
    Submitted: October 29, 2020                                    Decided: November 9, 2020
    Before WYNN, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elder Prescott Leach, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Elder Prescott Leach seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Leach’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
    petition. 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 Leach 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: 20-6861

Filed Date: 11/9/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/9/2020