Donald Jones v. Joseph McFadden
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999910125-2] Originating case number: 4:15-cv-04004-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000093252]. Mailed to: Donald Jones. [16-6897]
Appeal: 16-6897
Doc: 17
Filed: 06/02/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6897
DONALD SCOTT JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cv-04004-BHH)
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: June 2, 2017
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Scott Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6897
Doc: 17
Filed: 06/02/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Donald Scott Jones 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. 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.” 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 (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 Jones has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
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?