Robert Graham, Jr. v. State Attorney General, No. 13-6048 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6048 ROBERT GRAHAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL; LEROY CARTLEDGE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (6:12-cv-02699-CMC) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Graham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Graham, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge to construe his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and to dismiss the petition as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) A certificate of 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 merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 by that the claims is 473, 484 U.S. (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 Graham has not made the requisite showing. deny Graham s request for appointment 2 of Accordingly, we counsel, deny a certificate dispense of with contentions are appealability, and oral because argument adequately dismiss presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3