Anthony Clark v. Fred Thompson, No. 14-6507 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6507 ANTHONY CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FRED B. THOMPSON, Interim Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:12-cv-02669-RBH) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Clark seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting 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 § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent a constitutional of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. deny Clark s motions dismiss the appeal. facts and legal for a certificate of Accordingly, we appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 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.
