Terrance Tompkins v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999965059-2] Originating case number: 4:15-cv-04340-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032155].. [16-7405]

Appeal: 16-7405

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7405

TERRANCE MALCOM TOMPKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Walden/Stevenson Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-04340-DCN)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Malcom Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7405

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terrance
court’s

order

judge

and

petition.
or

Malcolm

judge

accepting

denying

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

the
the

U.S.C.

§

district

magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

Tompkins

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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
Tompkins 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
2

Appeal: 16-7405

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3