Anthony Johnson v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cv-01536-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999426922]. Mailed to: Anthony Johnson. [14-6529]

Appeal: 14-6529

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6529

ANTHONY JESUS JOHNSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:12-cv-01536-RBH)

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

Decided:

September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Jesus Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6529

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Jesus

accepting

denying

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the

the
§

district

magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

Johnson

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) (2012).

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 Johnson 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: 14-6529

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 09/02/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3