Gregory Green v. Donald Beckwith

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6151

GREGORY GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONALD BECKWITH, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (0:17-cv-02784-RBH)

Submitted: May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Gregory Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Green’s 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 Green has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Green’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny as moot his motion for bond or release pending appeal, 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