Titus Williams v. Warden McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-01685-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998666293]. Mailed to: appellant. [11-6591]

Appeal: 11-6591

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/30/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6591

TITUS WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCCALL, Perry Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-01685-RMG)

Submitted:

August 25, 2011

Decided:

August 30, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6591

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/30/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Titus Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his

28

U.S.C.

appealable

§ 2254

unless

petition.

circuit

a

(2006)

justice

certificate of appealability.
Reid

v.

Angelone,

A certificate

of

369

The
or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);

F.3d

363,

appealability

369

will

(4th

not

Cir.

issue

2004).

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

the

484-85.

conclude

that

We

have

Williams

independently
has

not

reviewed

made

the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2

Appeal: 11-6591

Document: 5

Date Filed: 08/30/2011

Page: 3 of 3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3