Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07634/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07634-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laquinces D. Davis
Appellant
Joseph McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7634

LAQUINCES D. DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:14-cv-02662-RMG)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Laquinces D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7634 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

LaQuinces D. Davis 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 Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for a 

transcript at Government expense, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7634 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/19/2015 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: 14-7634 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3