Court Opinion

ID: 4312630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-14 19:00:16.836867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:25.363716
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6394

KEVIN DWAYNE FLETCHER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

RICHARD MILLER;           ATTORNEY        GENERAL        OF       THE   STATE   OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00051-TDC)

Submitted: August 30, 2018                                  Decided: September 14, 2018

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Dwayne Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kevin Dwayne Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Fletcher has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fletcher’s motion for 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