Jimmy Williams v. Warden Lieber Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-02106-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915337]. Mailed to: Jimmy Williams. [16-6637]

Appeal: 16-6637

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6637

JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
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-02106-MGL)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lee Williams, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6637

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

adopting

relief

on

district

the

magistrate

Williams’
court’s

28

order

judge’s

U.S.C.
is

§ 2254

not

recommendation
(2012)

deny

petition.

unless

The

a

circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealable

to

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).

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
Williams 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: 16-6637

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 08/23/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3