Emmett Nall v. Warden Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:12-cv-02375-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999181210]. Mailed to: Emmett Nall. [13-6997]

Appeal: 13-6997

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6997

EMMETT RAY NALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (6:12-cv-02375-JFA)

Submitted:

August 20, 2013

Decided:

August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmett Ray Nall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6997

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Emmett Ray Nall, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district

court’s

order

accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2013) 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).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Nall 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: 13-6997

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 08/27/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3