Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07215/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel R. McClain
Appellant
Warden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7215

DANIEL R. MCCLAIN, a/k/a Mr. McClain,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Turbeville Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-03081-MBS)

Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel R. McClain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7215 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel R. McClain seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition, and denying his motion to recuse.

*

 An order denying a § 2254 petition 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 McClain has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McClain’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. To the extent that McClain challenges the 

denial of his motion to recuse, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. McClain v. Warden, No. 0:18-cv-03081-MBS (D.S.C. filed 

Aug. 5, 2019; entered Aug. 6, 2019). We deny McClain’s motion for default judgment. 

 * The district court’s order denied additional motions that are not at issue on appeal.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7215 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7215 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 3 of 3