Edward Morris v. Charles Burton ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6692 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6692
EDWARD L. MORRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CHARLES BURTON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00354-DCC)
Submitted: March 7, 2023 Decided: June 12, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward L. Morris, Appellant Pro. Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6692 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Morris seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Morris’ 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, 580 U.S. 100, 116
(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 Morris 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