Bryan v. McCall

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7592

TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a Terence Bryan, a/k/a T. Terell
Bryan,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL, and or responsible officials,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:09-cv-02117-TLW).

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Terence Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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 (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 Bryan 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

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3