Robert Foster v. Cecilia Reynolds, No. 15-7689 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7689 ROBERT LEE FOSTER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:14-cv-03853-TMC) Submitted: March 10, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. not appealable certificate (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. justice See 28 or The order is judge U.S.C. issues a § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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 prisoner the district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable denies relief standard find by that on the merits, demonstrating the district a that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his pending motion, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
