Stuckey v. State of South Carolina, (4th Cir. 2010)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 10-6549

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6549

CASEY STUCKEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(0:09-cv-00203-HFF)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Stuckey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Casey Stuckey seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Stuckey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Stuckey's motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.