UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7333
VIRGIL CULBREATH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH B. WEADON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (6:15-cv-00200-PMD)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: March 29, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Virgil Culbreath, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General,
Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Virgil Culbreath seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Respondent’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, 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 Culbreath 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 presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2