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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Louis Gainey Jr. MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 386 Redemption Way McCormick, SC 29899-0000. [16-7491]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LOUIS GAINEY, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent – Appellee,
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District
February 16, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
February 22, 2017
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Pg: 2 of 4
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 4
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.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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
Gainey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 4 of 4
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?