Dwight Sullivan v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 14-6741 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6741 DWIGHT SULLIVAN, a/k/a Fitzgerald Sullivan, Dwight F. Sullivan, a/k/a Dwight Petitioner Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden of McCormick & Perry Correctional Institutions, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:13-cv-00876-TMC) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and MOTZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 3, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight district Fitzgerald court s orders Sullivan accepting seeks the to appeal recommendation the of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, orders are issues not a and denying appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent a his unless of a to reconsider. circuit justice appealability. or 28 The judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. motion 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 Sullivan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and 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.
