Courtney Lyles v. Robert Bollinger, No. 13-7557 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7557 COURTNEY LYLES, Petitioner Appellant, v. ROBERT BOLLINGER, Interim Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (9:12-cv-01667-CMC) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 6, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Courtney Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Courtney Lyles 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 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of 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 Lyles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motions for appointment of counsel and for a federal hearing and dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
