Court Opinion

ID: 2656605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-13 18:38:52.661761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:30.573300
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7430

RICHARD A. CRAWFORD,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.     Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-02795-RMG)

Submitted:   February 27, 2014            Decided:   March 13, 2014

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Richard    A.   Crawford           seeks   to    appeal          the    district

court’s    order     accepting     the       recommendation          of    the        magistrate

judge 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.                   See     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 Crawford 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