Robert Mitchell v. Warden of Broad River, No. 13-6816 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 30, 2013.
Download PDF
ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6816 ROBERT L. MITCHELL, a/k/a Robert Lee Mitchell, a/k/a Robert Mitchell, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and BILL BYARS, Director SC Dept of Corrections, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00470-CMC) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert court s order L. Mitchell accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We appealability previously and dismissed denied his Mitchell appeal on a certificate the basis that of he waived appellate review of the district court s order by failing to file Mitchell objections has now to filed rehearing en banc. the a magistrate petition judge s for panel recommendation. rehearing and Upon review of the petition, we grant panel rehearing, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. The district court s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. assessment of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 3 dispositive petition procedural states a constitutional right. ruling is debatable debatable, claim of and the that denial the of a Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
