Charles Tyson v. Michael McCall, No. 13-6478 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6478 CHARLES TYSON, a/k/a Charles Kevin Bruce Tyson, Petitioner Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:12-cv-01863-DCN) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Tyson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Tyson seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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. satisfies jurists would of Slack this the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (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 Tyson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Tyson s motion to of clarify issuance of certificate 2 appealability and deferral of in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
