Ronald Porterfield v. Warden
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 0:14-cv-00927-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-6519]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RONALD WENDELL PORTERFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee,
JUDGE ALISON R. LEE; SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
June 25, 2015
June 30, 2015
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Wendell Porterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 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.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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
Porterfield has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?