Adarius Dennis v. Warden Cartledge

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6430

ADARIUS QUANTE DENNIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

WARDEN CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(0:14-cv-04637-TMC)

Submitted: March 10, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adarius Quante Dennis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Adarius Quante Dennis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(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 motion 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

Dennis 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

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED