Charles Patterson v. Darrell McGraw, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-03825. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408118]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6595]
Appeal: 14-6595
Doc: 11
Filed: 08/01/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6595
CHARLES EDWARD PATTERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR.; JOE THORNTON, MAPS Secretary; TERRI
SWECKER, Director of SORA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-03825)
Submitted:
July 29, 2014
Decided:
August 1, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6595
Doc: 11
Filed: 08/01/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Patterson 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
(2012)
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
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) (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 Patterson 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: 14-6595
Doc: 11
contentions
are
Filed: 08/01/2014
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?