Steven Littlejohn v. SC Dep't of Corrections, No. 12-7245 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7245 STEVEN W. LITTLEJOHN, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN OF TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (0:11-cv-00889-RMG) Submitted: December 4, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven W. Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Steven court s judge order and judge Littlejohn accepting denying petition. or W. relief 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)(A) (2006). issue the seeks absent a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § A certificate of appealability will not substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 (2000); (2003). see When Miller-El the v. district Cockrell, court denies 537 U.S. relief 322, on 336-38 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 Littlejohn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 3 the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
