Court Opinion

ID: 2773660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-27 20:01:16.894134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:37.547165
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7383

EDMOND STANLEY ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN EAGLETON,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-03424-DCN)

Submitted:   January 22, 2015             Decided:   January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edmond Stanley Adams, III, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John
Zelenka, Senior 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Edmond       Stanley     Adams,       III,   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 Adams 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3