Reginald Spellman v. Warden of Kershaw Corr Inst

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 9:16-cv-01332-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000106094]. Mailed to: Reginald Spellman. [17-6255]

Appeal: 17-6255

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/23/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6255

REGINALD BRYAN SPELLMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:16-cv-01332-RMG)

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Bryan Spellman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney
General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6255

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/23/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Bryan Spellman 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 Spellman 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

2