Court Opinion

ID: 4450332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-25 19:00:25.047949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:44.478859
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6518

RANDOLPH ASHFORD,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

MICHAEL STEPHAN,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-01262-JFA)

Submitted: October 23, 2019                                   Decided: October 25, 2019

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph Ashford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Randolph Ashford 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)(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 Ashford has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ashford’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Ashford’s motions for single-judge

consideration, to appoint counsel, and to hold his case in abeyance. Finally, we deny as

moot Ashford’s motion for release pending 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