Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07265/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph McFadden
Appellee
Demetrius Jarod Smalls
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7265

DEMETRIUS JAROD SMALLS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-02651-RMG)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Jarod Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7265 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Jarod Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s 

text order denying as moot the motion to dismiss that Smalls 

filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The court

previously accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and denied relief on Smalls’ 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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

Appeal: 15-7265 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7265 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3