James Scott v. William Byars , 516 F. App'x 281 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6088
    JAMES DARNELL SCOTT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WILLIAM R. BYARS, SCDC Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (0:12-cv-02061-RBH)
    Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 2, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Darnell Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James      Darnell     Scott        seeks   to    appeal       the    district
    court’s    order      accepting      the     recommendation          of    the     magistrate
    judge and dismissing as successive his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    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) (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 Scott 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: 13-6088

Citation Numbers: 516 F. App'x 281

Judges: Keenan, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/2/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023