Anthony Glenn James v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-03112-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873520]. Mailed to: Anthony James MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 386 Redemption Way McCormick, SC 29899-0000. [16-6331]

Appeal: 16-6331

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6331

ANTHONY GLENN JAMES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
DIRECTOR OF SCDC,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03112-TMC)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Appeal: 16-6331

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6331

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Glenn James seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely James’ 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
James has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

3

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6331

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 06/29/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4