William Seawright v. Michael McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:10-cv-00950-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998645469]. Mailed to: William A. Seawright. [11-6414]

Appeal: 11-6414

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/02/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6414

WILLIAM A. SEAWRIGHT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-00950-RMG)

Submitted:

July 28, 2011

Decided:

August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. Seawright, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6414

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/02/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.

A.

Seawright

accepting

the

denying

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation
on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the

district

magistrate

§ 2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

the

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Seawright 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

Appeal: 11-6414

before

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/02/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3