Stanford Tucker v. Michael McCall, No. 09-8223 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8223 STANFORD BYRON TUCKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:09-cv-00151-HMH) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanford Byron Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanford court s judge order and judge accepting denying petition. or Byron the relief seeks to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue Tucker absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of 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. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tucker 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.