From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. McFadden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 2, 2017
No. 16-6897 (4th Cir. Jun. 2, 2017)

Opinion

No. 16-6897

06-02-2017

DONALD SCOTT JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Donald Scott Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cv-04004-BHH) Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Scott Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Donald Scott Jones 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 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 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


Summaries of

Jones v. McFadden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 2, 2017
No. 16-6897 (4th Cir. Jun. 2, 2017)
Case details for

Jones v. McFadden

Case Details

Full title:DONALD SCOTT JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 2, 2017

Citations

No. 16-6897 (4th Cir. Jun. 2, 2017)