Clarence Miller v. Willie Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-03726-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000174603]. Mailed to: Clarence Scott Miller. [17-6426]

Appeal: 17-6426

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6426

CLARENCE SCOTT MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. WILLIE EAGLETON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:15-cv-03726-TMC)

Submitted: September 29, 2017

Decided: October 17, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Scott Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6426

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clarence Scott Miller 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 Miller 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

*

Construing Miller’s informal and supplemental briefs liberally, see Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), we conclude that Miller only challenged the
district court’s denial of his motions for discovery and an extension of time.

2

Appeal: 17-6426

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/17/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED

3