Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06555/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06555-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Byrd
Appellant
Joseph McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6555

PHILLIP BYRD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-04864-RBH)

Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 29, 2017

Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6555 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/29/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Byrd 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 

Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Byrd’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 16-6555 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/29/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6555 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/29/2017 Pg: 3 of 3