Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06861/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06861-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 20-6861

ELDER PRESCOTT LEACH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:19-cv-01726-JMC)

Submitted: October 29, 2020 Decided: November 9, 2020

Before WYNN, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elder Prescott Leach, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6861 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Elder Prescott Leach seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Leach’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Leach 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6861 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/09/2020 Pg: 2 of 2