Larry Martin v. Tim Riley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998857257-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998843398-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:11-cv-00473-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998878961]. Mailed to: Larry Martin. [12-6657]

Appeal: 12-6657

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6657

LARRY GENE MARTIN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TIM RILEY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (4:11-cv-00473-MBS)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6657

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry Gene Martin, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

accepting

denying

relief

recommendation
on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the

magistrate

§ 2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

the

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 Martin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 12-6657

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3