Dale Epps v. Michael McCall, No. 13-7069 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7069 DALE EPPS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00873-RMG) Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dale S. Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dale Epps seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Epps 28 U.S.C. successive § 2254 petition. (2006) The petition order is not as an unauthorized, 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. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Epps 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.