Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06774/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06774-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Ford
Appellee
Duane Harrison
Appellant
Bryan P. Stirling
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6774

DUANE HARRISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner South Carolina Department of Corrections; 

KEVIN FORD, Acting Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

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

Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cv-02373-CMC)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Walters, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF GLENN WALTERS, PA, Orangeburg, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6774 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Duane Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. He also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 

392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 

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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 

140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6774 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2