James Matthews v. Levern Cohen , 539 F. App'x 155 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6584
    JAMES MATTHEWS,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    LEVERN COHEN,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.    Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
    (4:12-cv-01407-MGL)
    Submitted:   August 29, 2013                 Decided:   September 4, 2013
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing       his        
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
        (2006)     petition      without
    prejudice.       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 Matthews 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6584

Citation Numbers: 539 F. App'x 155

Judges: Agee, Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023