Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06569/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06569-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6569

DONALD BATES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

L.R. THOMAS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. 

(9:14-cv-00411-BHH)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6569 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Bates, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed 

by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 

1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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 

Bates has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

Appeal: 15-6569 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

pauperis, 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

Appeal: 15-6569 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3