ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6816
ROBERT L. MITCHELL, a/k/a Robert Lee Mitchell, a/k/a Robert
Mitchell,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
BILL BYARS, Director SC Dept of Corrections,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:13-cv-00470-CMC)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Mitchell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. We previously denied Mitchell a certificate of
appealability and dismissed his appeal on the basis that he
waived appellate review of the district court’s order by failing
to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Mitchell has now filed a petition for panel rehearing and
rehearing en banc. Upon review of the petition, we grant panel
rehearing, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
appeal.
The district court’s order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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).
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
3
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 Mitchell 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
4