Tyrone Patrick v. Warden Perry Correctional, No. 16-6581 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6581 TYRONE PATRICK, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent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-04367-BHH) Submitted: October 11, 2016 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. KEENAN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 28, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Patrick, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Patrick seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Patrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Patrick’s motion for a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because 2 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.
