Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06759/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06759-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael A. Dukes
Appellant
Willie L. Eagleton
Appellee
South Carolina, the state of

Joshua L. Thomas

Alan Wilson

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6759

MICHAEL A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Micheal 

A. Dukes,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF; JOSHUA L. THOMAS, Assistant 

Attorney General; ALAN WILSON, Attorney General,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:16-cv-00840-DCN)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Dukes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6759 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Dukes 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 

Dukes 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: 16-6759 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/21/2016 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: 16-6759 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3