William Floyd v. Robert Stevenson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6659

WILLIAM PATRICK FLOYD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden Broad River,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00924-JFA)

Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 25, 2011

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Patrick Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

William Patrick Floyd seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition

and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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). 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 Floyd has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Floyd’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED