Damon Jackson v. Dennis Bush, No. 15-6279 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6279 DAMON LEMONT JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DENNIS BUSH, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (1:13-cv-03380-MGL) Submitted: July 31, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Lemont Jackson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Damon Lemont Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. certificate of justice or The order is judge issues 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). appealability will not issue absent a A “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 reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies 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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal 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.
