Ismael Cruz v. Michael McCall , 623 F. App'x 87 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7221
    ISMAEL R. CRUZ,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL MCCALL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (8:13-cv-00658-DCN)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2015            Decided:   November 24, 2015
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ismael R. Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.                                The order is
    not    appealable         unless    a   circuit       justice      or    judge     issues    a
    certificate of appealability.                 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    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) (2012).                     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
    Cruz 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: 15-7221

Citation Numbers: 623 F. App'x 87

Filed Date: 11/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023