Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07334/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendall Green
Appellant
Robert Stevenson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7334

KENDALL GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, Broad River Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(2:13-cv-02253-MGL)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendall Green, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-7334 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kendall Green 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 Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny Green’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7334 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/21/2015 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: 14-7334 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3