Court Opinion

ID: 3217735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-28 19:01:16.391918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:44.921097
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 16-6155

JEFFREY NIKO GRIMES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(0:15-cv-02131-BHH)

Submitted:   June 23, 2016                 Decided:   June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Niko Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jeffrey Niko Grimes seeks to appeal the district court’s order

and judgment 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

Grimes 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 contentions are

                                  2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3