Donald Bates v. L.R. Thomas

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6569

DONALD BATES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

L.R. THOMAS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:14-cv-00411-BHH)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Donald Bates, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed

by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306,

1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 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

Bates has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

2 pauperis, 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