Eric Sumter v. Warden Lieber Correctional


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [1000044360-3]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000044360-4]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000077781-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000072167-2] Originating case number: 4:16-cv-00739-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000140518]. Mailed to: Eric Sumter LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 205 Ridgeville, SC 29472-0000. [17-6203]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6203 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6203 ERIC SUMTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent – Appellee, and ALAN WILSON, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-00739-HMH) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Sumter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6203 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Eric Sumter 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 Sumter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sumter’s motion for a new trial and for appointment of counsel, 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?