UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6504
BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TIM RILEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(5:13-cv-01866-DCN)
Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher D.
Florian, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (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 Lisenby 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3