Donald Jones v. Joseph McFadden

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                                UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 16-6433


DONALD SCOTT JONES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.      Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (4:15-cv-01401-BHH)


Submitted:   July 28, 2016                    Decided:    August 2, 2016


Before MOTZ and       HARRIS,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donald Scott Jones, Appellant Pro Se.   Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Donald Scott Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on Jones’ 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

Jones has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       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