Louis Gainey, Jr. v. Warden Leroy Cartledge


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-03253-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000027805]. Mailed to: Louis Gainey Jr. MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 386 Redemption Way McCormick, SC 29899-0000. [16-7491]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7491 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7491 LOUIS GAINEY, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE, Respondent – Appellee, and ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (5:15-cv-03253-BHH) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: DUNCAN, February 22, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis Gainey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Appeal: 16-7491 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-7491 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Louis Gainey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the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 (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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). 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 Gainey has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 3 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal Appeal: 16-7491 Doc: 9 contentions Filed: 02/22/2017 are adequately Pg: 4 of 4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

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?