Scott Douglas Parker v. Warden Broad River


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-04648-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000114732]. Mailed to: Scott Douglas Parker BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 4460 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29210-0000. [17-6168]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6168 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/10/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6168 SCOTT DOUGLAS PARKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-04648-TLW) Submitted: June 26, 2017 Decided: July 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Appeal: 17-6168 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/10/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Scott Douglas Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-6168 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/10/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Scott Douglas Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting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 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 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 (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 Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?