Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06075/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Cartledge
Appellee
Isaac J. Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6075

ISAAC J. WALKER,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:14-cv-03749-RBH)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac J. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Isaac J. Walker 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 

Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

Walker’s motions for appointment of counsel and to expand a 

certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument 

Appeal: 16-6075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6075 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3