Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07428/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Randall Logan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7428

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY RANDALL LOGAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00012-WO-1; 1:12-cv-00699-

WO-JEP)

Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 18, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Randall Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7428 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Randall Logan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Logan has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny 

 * We note that the timely filing of objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. 

(Continued)

Appeal: 15-7428 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

 

United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621–22 (4th Cir. 2007); 

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Because Logan, a pro 

se litigant, received notice of the consequences of failing to 

object and yet failed to file objections to the magistrate 

judge’s initial recommendation, Logan has waived appellate 

review of his claims under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 

237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). See Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621–

22.

Appeal: 15-7428 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3