Paul Smith v. Robert Stevenson, No. 10-6837 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6837 PAUL SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden BRCI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:09-cv-00456-MBS) Submitted: January 20, 2011 Decided: February 11, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul Smith seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying reconsideration. justice or The orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent a constitutional right. certificate of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Smith 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
