Joshua Monroe v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cv-03565-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999723093]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-7540]

Appeal: 15-7540

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7540

JOSHUA ANDREW MONROE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (6:14-cv-03565-RMG)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Andrew Monroe, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7540

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joshua Andrew Monroe seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, as
modified, and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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
Monroe 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
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 15-7540

a

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

certificate

dispense

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

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation.
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 Monroe, a pro
se litigant, received notice of the consequences of failing to
object and yet failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
rejection of his claim that plea counsel was ineffective for
failing to pursue an alibi defense, Monroe has waived appellate
review of this claim. Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621-22.

3