Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07558/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Bush
Appellee
Richard L. Coleman
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7558

RICHARD L. COLEMAN,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DENNIS BUSH, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-02996-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard L. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7558 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard L. Coleman seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as 

successive. 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 Coleman 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: 14-7558 Doc: 8 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: 14-7558 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3