James Matthews v. Levern Cohen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-04538-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765018]. Mailed to: James Matthews. [15-7628]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7628 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7628 JAMES MATTHEWS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEVERN COHEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:14-cv-04538-MGL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 1, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Matthew, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7628 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: James Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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 Matthews 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: 15-7628 Doc: 7 contentions Filed: 03/01/2016 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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?