Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06345/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06345-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Andrew Beckham
Appellant
Leroy Cartledge
Appellee
Bryan Stirling

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6345

STEPHEN ANDREW BECKHAM, a/k/a Stephen A. Beckham,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, McCormick Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

BRYAN STIRLING, Commissioner South Carolina Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(6:14-cv-04358-MGL)

Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 26, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, BLUME, NORRIS & FRANKLIN-BEST, 

LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Appeal: 16-6345 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6345 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Andrew Beckham seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting, in part, 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 

Beckham 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: 16-6345 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6345 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 4 of 4