Juan Carlos Vazquez v. Warden Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-04475-BHH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000124483]. Mailed to: Juan Carlos Vazquez MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 386 Redemption Way McCormick, SC 29899-0000. [17-6429]

Appeal: 17-6429

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6429

JUAN CARLOS VAZQUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
ATTORNEY GEN ALAN WILSON,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:15-cv-04475-BHH)

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 17-6429

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Juan Carlos Vazquez, Appellant Pro Se. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6429

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juan Carlos Vazquez 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, and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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 Vazquez 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