Court Opinion

ID: 2771402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-20 20:46:21.05107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:23.773426
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7308

BOBBY GIBSON, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LARRY CARTLEDGE,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:13-cv-02234-JFA)

Submitted:   January 15, 2015             Decided:   January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Brandt Rucker, BRANDT RUCKER ATTORNEY AT LAW, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.      Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Bobby      Gibson,      Jr.,      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 Gibson 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

                                                2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3