UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7529
DERRICK LAMAR CHEEKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ALFORD JOYNER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:17-cv-02876-DCC)
Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: September 6, 2019
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eduardo K. Curry, CURRY LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lamar Cheeks 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 reconsideration. 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 Cheeks has not made
the requisite showing. 1 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
1
We note with disapproval that the brief filed by petitioner’s attorney in this court
is almost a verbatim copy of the objection to the magistrate’s report that petitioner filed,
pro se, in the district court. We further note that the single original argument in the brief
(relating to the search warrant at issue in this case) has no basis in the record or in law.
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3