Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06418/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06418-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Frazier
Appellant
Warden Stevens
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6418

WILLIE FRAZIER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN STEVENS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (4:09-cv-00302-JFA)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6418 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). 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) (2006). 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 Frazier has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Frazier’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 10-6418 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6418 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3