Court Opinion

ID: 4696623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-17 19:00:57.486614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:53.899991
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7213

DANTAE RAHEEVE STUKES,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                    Respondent - Appellee,

             and

HENRY MCMASTER, Governor,

                    Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:19-cv-03087-DCC)

Submitted: April 30, 2021                                         Decided: June 17, 2021

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dantae Raheeve Stukes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dantae Raheeve Stukes seeks to appeal the district court’s amended order adopting

in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Stukes’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition. The amended order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct.

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stukes 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                              2