Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06581/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06581-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6581

TYRONE PATRICK,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-04367-BHH)

Submitted: October 11, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Patrick, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6581 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Patrick seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his 

motion to reconsider. The orders are 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 

Patrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

deny Patrick’s motion for a transcript at government expense and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6581 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6581 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3