Court Opinion

ID: 4568375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:35:21.521441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:28.825584
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7744

WAYNE WELLS, JR.,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

TERRIE WALLACE, Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-01284-JFA)

Submitted: April 14, 2020                                         Decided: August 20, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Wells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Wayne Wells, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Well’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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 Wells 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