Michael A. Dukes, Sr. v. State of South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. COA denied. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-04269-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court. [999804187]. Mailed to: MICHAEL A. DUKES, SR. [15-8038]

Appeal: 15-8038

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8038

MICHAEL A. DUKES, SR., a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a
Michael Andre Dukes,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIE L. EAGLETON; JOSHUA L.
THOMAS, Assistant Attorney General; ALAN WILSON, Attorney
General; JIMMY A. RICHARDSON,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:15-cv-04269-DCN)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michel Andre Dukes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-8038

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Dukes, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to
treat Dukes’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and
unauthorized, and dismissing it on that basis.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

justice

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012);

Reid

363,

v.

Angelone,

certificate

of

369

F.3d

appealability

369

will

(4th
not

Cir.

2004).
absent

issue

A
“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

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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 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
Dukes has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability
2

and

Accordingly, we deny

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

Appeal: 15-8038

Doc: 7

dispense

Filed: 04/26/2016

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3