Timothy Kinard v. Joseph Battle, No. 16-6536 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6536 TIMOTHY T. KINARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH BATTLE, Center, Administrator, Abbeville County Detention Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (5:14-cv-04391-BHH) Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 17, 2016 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy T. Kinard, 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 Alphonso Simon, Jr., Donald John Zelenka, Senior Columbia, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Timothy T. Kinard 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 (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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this 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 Kinard has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We 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.
