James Brawner v. Warden Lee Correctional, No. 20-6511 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6511 JAMES RANDALL BRAWNER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:19-cv-03534-CMC) Submitted: July 21, 2020 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Randall Brawner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: July 24, 2020 PER CURIAM: James Randall Brawner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Brawner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 14041 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brawner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Brawner’s motion for the record on appeal, 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

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.