Donald Wetherall v. Cecilia Reynold

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-01753-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999912001]. Mailed to: D Wetherall. [16-6188]

Appeal: 16-6188

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6188

DONALD THOMAS WETHERALL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CECILIA REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (9:15-cv-01753-TLW)

Submitted:

August 2, 2016

Decided:

August 17, 2016

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Thomas Wetherall, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6188

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donald
court’s

order

judge

and

petition.
or

Thomas

judge

Wetherall

accepting

denying

relief

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the
§

district
magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

seeks

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
Wetherall 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: 16-6188

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 08/17/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3