James Douglas, Jr. v. Warden Dunlap, No. 14-7388 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7388 JAMES OSCAR DOUGLAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN DUNLAP, Walden Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:13-cv-01293-MGL) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Oscar Douglas, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Oscar Douglas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s judge order and petition. or judge accepting denying relief recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue the 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 Douglas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3