Johnny Mahaffey v. Robert Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-02727-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915360]. Mailed to: J Mahaffey. [16-6608]

Appeal: 16-6608

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6608

JOHNNY EARL MAHAFFEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(5:15-cv-02727-MGL)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Earl Mahaffey, Appellant Pro Se.
Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6608

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johnny Earl Mahaffey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny
relief

on

Mahaffey’s

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

A certificate of 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.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Mahaffey has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of
appealability.

Accordingly,

we

deny

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

a

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 16-6608

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3