Elijah Battle, Jr. v. Warden of Allendale Correctional, No. 13-6252 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6252 ELIJAH BATTLE, JR., a/k/a Elijah Battle, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:11-cv-03462-DCN) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elijah Battle, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, Appellee. Alphonso Simon, Jr., South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elijah court s judge order and petition. or judge Battle, accepting denying the relief seeks 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 Jr., 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 Battle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.