Court Opinion

ID: 2820944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-28 19:02:39.098043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:18.057153
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-6600

JEROME CARLTON WHITE,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MICHAEL MCCALL,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(5:13-cv-00745-BHH)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                  Decided:   July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Carlton White, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jerome Carlton White seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely 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)(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

White has not made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny

White’s motion for 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