Filed: Jul. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7296 ARTEASA MAURICE WHITLOCK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LAURA CALDWELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:17-cv-03335-JMC) Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7296 ARTEASA MAURICE WHITLOCK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LAURA CALDWELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:17-cv-03335-JMC) Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7296
ARTEASA MAURICE WHITLOCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LAURA CALDWELL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:17-cv-03335-JMC)
Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arteasa Maurice Whitlock, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arteasa Maurice Whitlock 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. See 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, although we conclude
Whitlock’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report were sufficiently specific to
warrant de novo review, Whitlock has not stated a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. 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