Court Opinion

ID: 3191862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-06 19:00:50.866764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:31.991581
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-7611

MICHAEL BARNEY DUNHAM,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-03067-JMC)

Submitted:   March 23, 2016                 Decided:   April 6, 2016

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant.   Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Michael Barney Dunham 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 (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

Dunham 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