William Washington v. Leroy Cartledge
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-02244-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: William Washington MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 386 Redemption Way McCormick, SC 29899-0000. [17-6950]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, The Honorable Alan Wilson,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:14-cv-02244-MGL)
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Decided: October 3, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
William Washington 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
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington 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.
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?