Donovan Henderson v. Joseph McFadden


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-00511-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999620882]. Mailed to: Donovan Henderson. [15-6234]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6234 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6234 DONOVAN HENDERSON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:14-cv-00511-TMC) Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 15, 2015 Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donovan Henderson, Appellant Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, Appellee. Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Columbia, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6234 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Donovan Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 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 or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Henderson 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: 15-6234 Doc: 6 contentions Filed: 07/15/2015 are 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?