Timothy Edens, Sr. v. Warden Willie Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cv-03427-SB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408127]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6610, 14-6720]

Appeal: 14-6610

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6610

TIMOTHY ENOS EDENS, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-6720

TIMOTHY ENOS EDENS, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cv-03427-SB)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

August 1, 2014

Appeal: 14-6610

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Timothy Enos Edens, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant
Attorney
General,
James
Anthony
Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-6610

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Timothy Enos Edens, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.

Edens also seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e).
justice

or

These orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Edens has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
3

We

Appeal: 14-6610

Doc: 6

dispense

Filed: 08/01/2014

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4