Billy Lisenby, Jr. v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-01546-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646737]. Mailed to: Billy Lisenby, Jr.; Daniel Crooks, III. [15-6595]

Appeal: 15-6595

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6595

BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(5:14-cv-01546-DCN)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Daniel John Crooks,
III, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6595

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Billy
court’s

Lee

judge

order
and

Lisenby,
accepting

denying

Jr.,
the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

the
the

U.S.C.

§

district
magistrate

2241

(2012)

petition, which the district court treated as a petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012).
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Lisenby 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: 15-6595

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 08/25/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3