Edmond Adams, III v. Willie Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:12-cv-03424-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999517925]. Mailed to: Edmond Adams, III. [14-7383]

Appeal: 14-7383

Doc: 6

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7383

EDMOND STANLEY ADAMS, III, a/k/a Edmond Adams,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN EAGLETON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-03424-DCN)

Submitted:

January 22, 2015

Decided:

January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edmond Stanley Adams, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7383

Doc: 6

Filed: 01/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edmond
district

Stanley

Adams,

order

accepting

court’s

III,
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

the

of

the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice

issues

or

judge

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 Adams 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: 14-7383

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 01/27/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3