Rodney Simmons v. Warden Larry Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02346-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999941027]. Mailed to: Rodney Simmons ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1151 Fairfax, SC 29827-0000. [16-6518]

Appeal: 16-6518

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6518

RODNEY SIMMONS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-02346-DCN)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Simmons, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6518

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney Simmons 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)(B) (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

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

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

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Simmons 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: 16-6518

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 10/04/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3