Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06868/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06868-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maurice Graves
Appellant
Michael McCall
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6868

MAURICE GRAVES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. 

(1:13-cv-02866-RMG)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6868 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Graves seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and denying his motion for 

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) (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

Graves 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: 15-6868 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/19/2015 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: 15-6868 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3