Perry Watford v. Robert Stevenson, III, No. 10-6580 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed: March 1, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6580 (6:09-cv-00924-SB) PERRY LEE WATFORD, Petitioner Appellant, v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Respondent Appellee. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed February 28, 2011, as follows: On the cover sheet, district court information section, the case number is corrected to read 6:09-cv-00924SB. For the Court By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6580 PERRY LEE WATFORD, Petitioner Appellant, v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00924-SB) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry Lee Watford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Perry Lee Watford 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 of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 that We have Watford independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and 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
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.
