Bernard Bagley v. Cecilia Reynolds, No. 12-7822 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7822 BERNARD BAGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Respondent Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-02664-TLW) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: February 25, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) 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). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Bagley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 3 the 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.
