Kevin McDaniels v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, No. 12-7050 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7050 KEVIN WAYNE MCDANIELS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondent Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00975-TLW) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Wayne McDaniels, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin court s judge order and petition. or judge Wayne McDaniels accepting denying relief to appeal recommendation on his 28 of the the U.S.C. district magistrate § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue the seeks 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDaniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McDaniels motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 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.
