Court Opinion

ID: 626618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-03 19:40:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:16.357800
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-7519

CHRISTOPHER PETIT, a/k/a Christopher L. Petit,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(4:10-cv-01777-HFF)

Submitted:   March 29, 2012                 Decided:   April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher Petit seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely 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 Petit 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

                                           2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3