Reginald Miller v. Warden Cartledge
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999785015-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00019-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Reginald Miller. [16-6314]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
July 21, 2016
July 22, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Miller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Reginald Miller 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.
certificate of appealability.
The order is
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Miller has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?