Laquinces Davis v. Leroy Cartiledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [998803300-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998779520-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998779519-2] Originating case number: 0:09-cv-03218-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998831892]. Mailed to: Laquinces D. Davis. [11-7434]

Appeal: 11-7434

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/13/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7434

LAQUINCES D. DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTILEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (0:09-cv-03218-RMG)

Submitted:

April 6, 2012

Decided:

April 13, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Laquinces D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
James
Anthony
Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7434

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/13/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Laquinces
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

D.

accepting

denying

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

Davis

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.

Slack,

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

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny Davis’ motion to invoke rule 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2006).

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-7434

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/13/2012

Page: 3 of 3

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

3