Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-08038/USCOURTS-ca4-15-08038-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-8038

MICHAEL A. DUKES, SR., a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a 

Michael Andre Dukes,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIE L. EAGLETON; JOSHUA L. 

THOMAS, Assistant Attorney General; ALAN WILSON, Attorney 

General; JIMMY A. RICHARDSON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:15-cv-04269-DCN)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michel Andre Dukes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-8038 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Dukes, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to 

treat Dukes’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and 

unauthorized, and dismissing it on that basis. 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); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

Appeal: 15-8038 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 15-8038 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3