Court Opinion

ID: 626498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-02 19:36:21+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:21.676223
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 11-7394

GARY STEVEN SCOTT, former #273698,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

ANTHONY PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution,

                       Respondent – Appellee,
          and

JON OZMINT,

                       Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.       Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (6:10-cv-02190-JFA)

Submitted:    March 29, 2012                 Decided:   April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Steven Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Gary Steven Scott 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 (2006) 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)

(2006).     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) (2006).                  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 Scott has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny    Scott’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

                                            2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3