UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6581
TYRONE PATRICK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (5:14-cv-04367-BHH)
Submitted: October 11, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Patrick, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyrone Patrick seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his
motion to reconsider. The orders are 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
Patrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Patrick’s motion for a transcript at government expense and
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