Robinson v. Pate, 122016 FED4, 16-7089
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||TROY LEE ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JOHN PATE, Respondent - Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Troy Lee Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 20, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: December 15, 2016
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (5:15-cv-04287-DCN)
Troy Lee Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Troy Lee Robinson 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 Robinson 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.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP