Christopher Darby v. Warden Cartledge, No. 12-6667 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6667 CHRISTOPHER G. DARBY, a/k/a Chris Darby, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN CARTLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00021-TLW) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher G. Darby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher court s order G. accepting Darby the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an unauthorized, successive petition. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this reasonable jurists would assessment of constitutional wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) the standard find by that demonstrating the claims district is that court s debatable or Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Darby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Darby s motions for the appointment of counsel and for transcripts at Government expense. 2 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.
