Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06349/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06349-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6349

ROBERT JAMES MILLER, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

BRIAN STIRLING, Director South Carolina Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-00483-RBH)

Submitted: July 28, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert James Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony 

Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Appeal: 15-6349 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6349 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Miller, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

without prejudice. 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 

Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Miller’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 15-6349 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6349 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 4 of 4