Michael Dukes v. Willie Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 0:16-cv-00840-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999952287].. [16-6759]

Appeal: 16-6759

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6759

MICHAEL A. DUKES, a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Micheal
A. Dukes,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF; JOSHUA L. THOMAS, Assistant
Attorney General; ALAN WILSON, Attorney General,
Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:16-cv-00840-DCN)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Decided:

October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Dukes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6759

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Dukes 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)(A) (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

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
Dukes has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6759

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 10/21/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3