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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?