Court Opinion

ID: 807493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-27 19:14:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:25.439531
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 12-6684

CARLIE G. BUTTS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:11-cv-01765-JFA)

Submitted:   August 22, 2012                 Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlie G. Butts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Carlie G. Butts seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.                                   The

orders are       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 Butts 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