Donald Bates v. L.R. Thomas, No. 15-6569 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6569 DONALD BATES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. L.R. THOMAS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:14-cv-00411-BHH) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Bates, a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). issue absent “a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 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 (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 Bates has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 2 pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 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.
