Court Opinion

ID: 623822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-28 20:51:50+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:05.571243
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-7741

ELIJAH MARSHALL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN CARTLEDGE,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cv-02591-GRA)

Submitted:   February 23, 2012             Decided:   February 28, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Marshall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Elijah       Marshall,     Jr.,      seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    accepting      the      recommendation           of   the    magistrate

judge and denying relief on his successive 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 Marshall 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   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3