From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spellman v. Warden of Kershaw Corr. Inst.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2017
No. 17-6255 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)

Opinion

No. 17-6255

06-23-2017

REGINALD BRYAN SPELLMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee.

Reginald Bryan Spellman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:16-cv-01332-RMG) Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Bryan Spellman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Reginald Bryan Spellman 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 Spellman 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

Spellman v. Warden of Kershaw Corr. Inst.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2017
No. 17-6255 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)
Case details for

Spellman v. Warden of Kershaw Corr. Inst.

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD BRYAN SPELLMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KERSHAW…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 23, 2017

Citations

No. 17-6255 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)