Kevin Mellette v. Levern Cohen
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00107-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915402]. Mailed to: K Mellette. [16-6451]
Appeal: 16-6451
Doc: 5
Filed: 08/23/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6451
KEVIN MELLETTE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEVERN COHEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-00107-BHH)
Submitted:
August 18, 2016
Decided:
August 23, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Mellette, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6451
Doc: 5
Filed: 08/23/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Mellette seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting
the
recommendation
of
the
magistrate
judge
and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28 U.S.C.
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 (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
Mellette has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
Appeal: 16-6451
Doc: 5
adequately
Filed: 08/23/2016
presented
in
the
Pg: 3 of 3
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?