Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06331/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06331-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6331

ANTHONY GLENN JAMES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

DIRECTOR OF SCDC,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-03112-TMC)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony James, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South 

Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 16-6331 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6331 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Glenn James seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely James’ 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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6331 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6331 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 4 of 4