Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07466/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07466-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7466

DEWAYNE MCKENZIE, a/k/a Shawn McKenzie,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

DIRECTOR BILL BYERS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(8:13-cv-02488-RBH)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewayne McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7466 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dewayne McKenzie seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on McKenzie’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, 

and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 McKenzie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We further deny McKenzie’s motion for the appointment of 

Appeal: 14-7466 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

counsel. 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: 14-7466 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3