Donovan Henderson v. Joseph McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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