Court Opinion

ID: 4568234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:33:38.908664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:02.630141
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-6650

BOBBY JOE BARTON,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

SCOTT LEWIS, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (9:18-cv-00748-RBH)

Submitted: September 1, 2020                                  Decided: September 4, 2020

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Joe Barton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Bobby Joe Barton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Barton’s 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)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barton has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny Barton’s motion to place his appeal in abeyance, 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