Ronald Porterfield v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999612008].. [15-6519]

Appeal: 15-6519

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6519

RONALD WENDELL PORTERFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
JUDGE ALISON R. LEE; SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-00927-TMC)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6519

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ronald

Wendell

Porterfield

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 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).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

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.
DISMISSED
2