Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7536 FERRIS G. SINGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MICHAEL STEPHAN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:17-cv-01403-TMC) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: April 4, 2018 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ferris G. Singley, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7536 FERRIS G. SINGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MICHAEL STEPHAN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:17-cv-01403-TMC) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: April 4, 2018 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ferris G. Singley, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7536
FERRIS G. SINGLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MICHAEL STEPHAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:17-cv-01403-TMC)
Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: April 4, 2018
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ferris G. Singley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ferris G. Singley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 Singley 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