Michael Singleton v. Warden Evans Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-01034-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780461]. Mailed to: Singleton. [11-7219]

Appeal: 11-7219

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7219

MICHAEL A. SINGLETON, f/k/a Michael A. Singleton, #1081861,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-01034-TLW)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7219

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael
court’s

order

A.

Singleton

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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 Singleton 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: 11-7219

before

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3