Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06519/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06519-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6519

RONALD WENDELL PORTERFIELD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

JUDGE ALISON R. LEE; SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; SOUTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-00927-TMC)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Wendell Porterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6519 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Wendell Porterfield seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and denying relief on his 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 

Porterfield 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 contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6519 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 2