Tompkins v. Warden, Walden/Stevenson Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7405

TERRANCE MALCOM TOMPKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

WARDEN, Walden/Stevenson Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-04340-DCN)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Malcom Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Terrance Malcolm Tompkins seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 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

Tompkins 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