Vernard Mathis v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-02383-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999000386].. [12-7578]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-7578 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/12/2012 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7578 VERNARD JEROME MATHIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (1:11-cv-02383-RMG) Submitted: December 6, 2012 Decided: December 12, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 12-7578 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/12/2012 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Vernard court’s judge order and petition. or judge Jerome 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 Mathis 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 Mathis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal Appeal: 12-7578 Doc: 9 contentions Filed: 12/12/2012 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?