Kevin Fletcher v. Richard Miller, No. 18-6394 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6394 KEVIN DWAYNE FLETCHER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD MILLER; MARYLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00051-TDC) Submitted: August 30, 2018 Decided: September 14, 2018 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Dwayne Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Dwayne Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 of appealability. See 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Fletcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fletcher’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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 2