Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07833/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07833-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Anthony Primus
Appellant
Edsel T. Taylor
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7833

JAMES ANTHONY PRIMUS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN EDSEL T. TAYLOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(4:14-cv-3015-DCN)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Anthony Primus, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7833 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James Anthony Primus seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to 

dismiss Primus’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive 

and denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.* 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. 

 * In his informal brief, Primus does not challenge the 

district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus 

and has therefore forfeited appellate review of that portion of 

the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Appeal: 14-7833 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Primus 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: 14-7833 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3