Christopher Darby v. Warden Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998843226-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998843230-2]. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00021-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998924969]. Mailed to: Christopher Darby. [12-6667]

Appeal: 12-6667

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6667

CHRISTOPHER G. DARBY, a/k/a Chris Darby,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(2:12-cv-00021-TLW)

Submitted:

August 22, 2012

Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher G. Darby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6667

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher
court’s

order

G.

accepting

Darby
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an
unauthorized, successive petition.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

reasonable

jurists

would

assessment

of

constitutional

wrong.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

the

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

claims

district
is

that

court’s

debatable

or

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 Darby has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

further deny Darby’s motions for the appointment of counsel and
for transcripts at Government expense.
2

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 12-6667

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3