UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7833
JAMES ANTHONY PRIMUS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN EDSEL T. TAYLOR,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-3015-DCN)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Anthony Primus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Anthony Primus seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss Primus’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive
and denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. * 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.
*
In his informal brief, Primus does not challenge the
district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus
and has therefore forfeited appellate review of that portion of
the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Primus 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
3