Calvin Gaddy v. Michael McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-01743-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780252]. Mailed to: Calvin Gaddy. [11-7424]

Appeal: 11-7424

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7424

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cv-01743-JFA)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 11-7424

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Calvin
court’s
judge

order
and

judge

accepting

denying

petition.
or

Lyndale

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the

§

district

magistrate

2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

Gaddy

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.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Gaddy

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: 11-7424

before

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3