James Bryant v. Warden Broad River, No. 13-6558 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6558 JAMES A. BRYANT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (5:11-cv-01315-RBH) Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James A. Bryant 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 and its subsequent appealable order denying unless a reconsideration. circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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 prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this 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 Bryant 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.
