Emmett Nall v. Warden of Perry Correctional , 599 F. App'x 114 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7670
EMMETT RAY NALL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cv-02733-JFA)
Submitted: March 23, 2015 Decided: April 9, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmett Ray Nall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmett Ray Nall 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
Nall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
*
We reject Nall’s contention that his filing should have
been construed as an independent action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5.1.
2
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
3