Tremain Davis v. Larry Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:16-cv-02673-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000324794]. Mailed to: Tremain Davis. [17-6541]

Appeal: 17-6541

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/06/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6541

TREMAIN ORLANDO DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LARRY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:16-cv-02673-HMH)

Submitted: April 30, 2018

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremain Orlando Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: July 6, 2018

Appeal: 17-6541

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/06/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tremain Orlando Davis 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 Davis 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