Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07333/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arimatia Arpad Buggs
Appellant
State of South Carolina
Appellee
Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7333

ARIMATIA ARPAD BUGGS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:19-cv-01872-HMH)

Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arimatia Arpad Buggs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7333 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Arimatia Arpad Buggs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Buggs’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition as untimely. 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 Buggs has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7333 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/23/2019 Pg: 2 of 2