UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6499
SYLVESTER SINGLETARY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:13-cv-00804-RBH)
Submitted: August 12, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Singletary seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge as modified and denying relief on his 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 Singletary has not made the required showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion to
appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3