Louis Gainey, Jr. v. Warden Leroy Cartledge

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7491

LOUIS GAINEY, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (5:15-cv-03253-BHH)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Gainey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Louis Gainey, Jr., 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

Gainey 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

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED