Elijah Battle, Jr. v. Warden of Allendale Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-03462-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999160781]. Mailed to: Elijah Battle. [13-6252]

Appeal: 13-6252

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6252

ELIJAH BATTLE, JR., a/k/a Elijah Battle,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-03462-DCN)

Submitted:

July 25, 2013

Decided: July 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah Battle, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia,
Appellee.

Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
South Carolina, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6252

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Elijah
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Battle,

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

Jr.,

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 Battle 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: 13-6252

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 07/29/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3