Quentin Sullivan v. Anthony Padula

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cv-02045-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999180229].. [13-6543]

Appeal: 13-6543

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6543

QUENTIN MARQUISE SULLIVAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY PADULA, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:11-cv-02045-MGL)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quentin Marquise Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar
Salter,
III,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Columbia,
South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6543

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Quentin Marquise Sullivan 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 Sullivan has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6543

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 08/26/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3