T. Terell Bryan v. McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999507655-3], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:14-cv-03627-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court. [999550174]. Mailed to: T. Terell Bryan. [14-7864]

Appeal: 14-7864

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7864

T. TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terance Bryan, a/k/a Terrence
Terell Bryan, a/k/a Terence Terell Bryan,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCFADDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(5:14-cv-03627-TMC)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7864

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
T. Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

petition

appealability.

without

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

(2012)

and

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
a

2254

judge

prejudice.

issues

§

magistrate

his

judge

U.S.C.

the

dismissing

or

28

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
Bryan has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a

Bryan’s

certificate

of

appealability,

deny

injunctive relief, and dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

because

the

facts
2

and

legal

motion

for

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 14-7864

Doc: 9

adequately

Filed: 03/20/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3