Court Opinion

ID: 819820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-02-06 19:45:53.188726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:00.845930
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7656

TONY CUNNINGHAM,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.     J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:11-cv-01037-JMC)

Submitted:   January 29, 2013             Decided:   February 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant   Attorney  General,   Melody  Jane   Brown,  Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Tony Cunningham 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 (2006) 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)

(2006).     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) (2006).                    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      Cunningham         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

                                              2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3