Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-18-07254/USCOURTS-ca4-18-07254-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Lewis
Appellee
Richard Kevin Patterson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7254

RICHARD KEVIN PATTERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN SCOTT LEWIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:17-cv-02546-DCC)

Submitted: November 27, 2019 Decided: January 16, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7254 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/16/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Kevin Patterson 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 

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). 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). 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. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–38 (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. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Patterson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss this 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: 18-7254 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/16/2020 Pg: 2 of 2