Eugene Thomas v. Warden of McCormick Correctional Inst., No. 21-7005 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7005 EUGENE THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-02176-MBS) Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene Thomas, a South Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying various postjudgment motions Thomas filed in his federal habeas proceeding— including, most notably, Thomas’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Thomas’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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); see generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas 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 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.
