Samuel Johnson v. Robert Stevenson, III, No. 14-7274 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7274 SAMUEL T. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (5:13-cv-01714-TMC) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel T. Johnson, Assistant Attorney Assistant Attorney Appellee. Appellant General, General, Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Donald John Zelenka, Senior Columbia, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel T. Johnson 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 (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). on the merits, demonstrating district that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies relief prisoner satisfies reasonable assessment wrong. Slack 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 Johnson 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