Billy Ray Mills v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01320-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999681631]. Mailed to: Mills. [15-7008]

Appeal: 15-7008

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7008

BILLY RAY MILLS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-01320-TMC)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Ray Mills, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7008

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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
Mills has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7008

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 10/20/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3