Billy Lee v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-01603-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999895731]. Mailed to: B Lee. [16-6266]

Appeal: 16-6266

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6266

BILLY NATHAN LEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (6:15-cv-01603-BHH)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Nathan Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6266

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Billy Nathan Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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
Lee has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6266

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 07/25/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3