Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07383/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07383-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7383

EDMOND STANLEY ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN EAGLETON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(6:12-cv-03424-DCN)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edmond Stanley Adams, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7383 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Edmond Stanley Adams, III, 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 Adams 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: 14-7383 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7383 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3