Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06155/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Niko Grimes
Appellant
Joseph McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6155

JEFFREY NIKO GRIMES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. 

(0:15-cv-02131-BHH)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Niko Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6155 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Niko Grimes seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

and judgment 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

Grimes 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: 16-6155 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6155 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3