Ahmad Garland v. Edsel Taylor, No. 08-6342 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6342 AHMAD CLARENCE GARLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, v. EDSEL T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1, Respondent - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Director SCDC, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (4:07-cv-00194-JFA) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ahmad Clarence Garland seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garland 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 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.