Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07262/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07262-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donte Laquawn Capers
Appellant
Leroy Cartledge
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7262

DONTE LAQUAWN CAPERS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (4:15-cv-03267-HMH)

Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donte Laquawn Capers, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7262 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donte Laquawn Capers 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 

Capers 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: 16-7262 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/08/2017 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: 16-7262 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/08/2017 Pg: 3 of 3