Charles Patterson v. Darrell McGraw, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCharles Patterson v. Darrell McGraw, JR., 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6595
CHARLES EDWARD PATTERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR.; JOE THORNTON, MAPS Secretary; TERRI
SWECKER, Director of SORA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-03825)
Submitted:
July 29, 2014
Decided:
August 1, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district
courts
judge
order
and
petition.
or
judge
accepting
denying
relief
recommendation
on
his
28
of
U.S.C.
the
magistrate
2254
(2012)
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues
certificate
2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
the
absent
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.
of
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
of
When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this
standard
by
demonstrating
that
reasonable
jurists
would
find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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 Patterson has not made the requisite showing.
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
