Court Opinion

ID: 4706135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-23 19:02:28.336328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:35.239901
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-6211

TITO F. HARRIS,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:20-cv-00906-TMC)

Submitted: July 20, 2021                                            Decided: July 23, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tito F. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Tito F. Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Harris’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 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 could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       Limiting our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, we conclude that

Harris 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                              2