Court Opinion

ID: 2656108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-10 19:07:15.389148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:23.070601
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7471

DEVON FORD, a/k/a Deven Ford, a/k/a Devin Ford,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.     G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:12-cv-02266-GRA)

Submitted:   February 26, 2014            Decided:    March 10, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.    Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant  Attorney   General,  Donald   John   Zelenka,  Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Devon Ford 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)(B) (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    motion    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 Ford 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