Lewis Fielder v. Robert Stevenson, III

Fourth Circuit

Lewis Fielder v. Robert Stevenson, III

540 F. App'x 195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 27, 2013

Docket13-6363

StatusUnpublished

This text of 540 F. App'x 195 (Lewis Fielder v. Robert Stevenson, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis Fielder v. Robert Stevenson, III, 540 F. App'x 195 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lewis Wayne Fielder seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Respondent’s motion to strike Fielder’s affidavit seeking to enhance the state court record, and accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fielder has not made the requisite showing. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Fielder’s affidavit. See Landrum v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 905, 923-24 (6th Cir.2010) (standard of review); Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1162 (11th Cir.2010) (same); Eckstein v. Kingston, 460 F.3d 844, 852 (7th Cir.2006) (same). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lewis Wayne Fielder seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting Respondent’s motion to strike Fielder’s affidavit seeking to enhance the state court record, and accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fielder has not made the requisite showing. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Fielder’s affidavit. See Landrum v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 905, 923-24 (6th Cir.2010) (standard of review); Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1162 (11th Cir.2010) (same); Eckstein v. Kingston, 460 F.3d 844, 852 (7th Cir.2006) (same). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 F. App'x 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-fielder-v-robert-stevenson-iii-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack