James Lucas v. Michael McCall, No. 14-6066 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6066 JAMES MICHAEL LUCAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden of the Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02879-TMC) Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Michael Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James court s judge order and petition. or judge Michael accepting denying the relief seeks to appeal recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the the § district magistrate 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue Lucas absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Lucas has not made the requisite showing. deny a certificate of appealability, deny Accordingly, we Lucas motion to appoint counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
