Kenwood Bright v. Robert Stevenson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion-- certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:16-cv-00247-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: K. Bright. [16-7317]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
February 23, 2017
February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenwood Bright, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Kenwood Bright 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
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
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Bright has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?