Thomas Stutts v. Robert Stevenson, III , 516 F. App'x 250 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7893
    THOMAS MITCHELL STUTTS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden of Broad River Correctional
    Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee,
    and
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.   Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
    (8:11-cv-00191-TMC)
    Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 1, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Mitchell Stutts, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Mitchell Stutts seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order     accepting       the    recommendation       of    the    magistrate
    judge and dismissing as untimely Stutts’ 
    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 Stutts 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: 12-7893

Citation Numbers: 516 F. App'x 250

Judges: Keenan, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/1/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023