James Weersing v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998829234-2] Originating case number: 8:09-cv-00088-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998838418]. Mailed to: James Weersing. [11-6672]

Appeal: 11-6672

Document: 20

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6672
JAMES B. WEERSING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden McCormick Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00088-JMC)
Submitted:

April 19, 2012

Decided:

April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Weersing, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Alphonso
Simon,
Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6672

Document: 20

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James B. Weersing seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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.
484 (2000);
(2003).

see

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Weersing has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

deny

dispense

Weersing’s
with

oral

motion

for

argument

appointment
because

2

the

of

counsel.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 11-6672

Document: 20

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3