Casey Stuckey v. State of South Carolina, No. 10-6549 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6549 CASEY STUCKEY, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH INSTITUTION, CAROLINA; WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:09-cv-00203-HFF) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 29, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Stuckey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Casey Stuckey seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 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) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude We that Accordingly, we have Stuckey deny independently has not Stuckey s reviewed made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the for record requisite a and showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.
