Anthony James v. Leroy Cartledge

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 16-6331


ANTHONY GLENN JAMES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE,

                Respondent – Appellee,

          and

DIRECTOR OF SCDC,

                Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.     Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03112-TMC)


Submitted:   June 23, 2016                  Decided:   June 29, 2016


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony James, Appellant Pro Se.    Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina,   Donald  John   Zelenka,  Senior   Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                2
PER CURIAM:

       Anthony Glenn James seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely James’ 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

James 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



                                           3
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   4