Paul Singleton v. Warden Bodison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:10-cv-01896-MBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998793218]. Mailed to: Paul Singleton. [11-7407]

Appeal: 11-7407

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/22/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7407

PAUL J. SINGLETON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCKIETHER BODISON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (0:10-cv-01896-MBS)

Submitted:

February 16, 2012

Decided:

February 22, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul J. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.
Brendan McDonald, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7407

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/22/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Paul J. Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2006).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
on

the

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies relief

prisoner

satisfies

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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 484-85.
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

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-7407

Document: 11

Date Filed: 02/22/2012

Page: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3