Tommy Young v. Warden Stevenson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-02374-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999029847]. Mailed to: appellant. [12-7549]
Appeal: 12-7549
Doc: 6
Filed: 01/25/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7549
TOMMY YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STEVENSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-02374-CMC)
Submitted:
January 18, 2013
Decided:
January 25, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7549
Doc: 6
Filed: 01/25/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
not
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
or
The order is
judge
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
When the district court denies
satisfies
jurists
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
Slack
this
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 Young has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
2
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 12-7549
Doc: 6
contentions
Filed: 01/25/2013
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?