US v. Tony Randall Logan


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00012-WO-1,1:12-cv-00699-WO-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999757141]. Mailed to: Tony Randall Logan FCI EDGEFIELD FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 725 Edgefield, SC 29824-0000. [15-7428]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7428 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7428 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY RANDALL LOGAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00012-WO-1; 1:12-cv-00699WO-JEP) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 18, 2016 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Randall Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7428 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Tony Randall Logan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by 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 motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Logan has not made the requisite showing. * * Accordingly, we deny We note that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. (Continued) 2 Appeal: 15-7428 a Doc: 11 certificate dispense Filed: 02/18/2016 of with contentions are Pg: 3 of 3 appealability oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621–22 (4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Because Logan, a pro se litigant, received notice of the consequences of failing to object and yet failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s initial recommendation, Logan has waived appellate review of his claims under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). See Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621– 22. 3

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?