Court Opinion

ID: 4360724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-22 20:00:21.560681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:38.838799
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7115

LARRY G. HARVIN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

INTERIM WARDEN JOEL ANDERSON,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:18-cv-00292-RBH)

Submitted: January 17, 2019                                       Decided: January 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry G. Harvin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Larry G. Harvin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation to dismiss Harvin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an

unauthorized, successive petition, and denying Harvin’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to

alter or amend judgment. The orders are 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 Harvin 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2