Louis Gainey, Jr. v. Warden Leroy Cartledge
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?