Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07611/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07611-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Barney Dunham
Appellant
Joseph McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7611

MICHAEL BARNEY DUNHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-03067-JMC)

Submitted: March 23, 2016 Decided: April 6, 2016

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7611 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/06/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Barney Dunham 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

Dunham 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 

Appeal: 15-7611 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/06/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7611 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/06/2016 Pg: 3 of 3