From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flood v. Warden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 7, 2017
No. 17-6053 (4th Cir. Jun. 7, 2017)

Opinion

No. 17-6053

06-07-2017

CEDRIC FLOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Cedric Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:16-cv-01877-BHH) Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Cedric Flood seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting 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 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." 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 Flood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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


Summaries of

Flood v. Warden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 7, 2017
No. 17-6053 (4th Cir. Jun. 7, 2017)
Case details for

Flood v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:CEDRIC FLOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 7, 2017

Citations

No. 17-6053 (4th Cir. Jun. 7, 2017)