Timothy Edens, Sr. v. Willie Eagleton, No. 14-6610 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6610 TIMOTHY ENOS EDENS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 14-6720 TIMOTHY ENOS EDENS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-03427-SB) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. August 1, 2014 Timothy Enos Edens, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Enos Edens, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. Edens also seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). justice or These orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 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). 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 Edens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 3 We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials 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.
