From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Eagleton

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 4, 2010
396 F. App'x 965 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-6483.

Submitted: September 28, 2010.

Decided: October 4, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-01344-PMD).

Haley J. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Haley J. Thomas 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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-S5, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Eagleton

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 4, 2010
396 F. App'x 965 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Thomas v. Eagleton

Case Details

Full title:Haley J. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden ECI…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 4, 2010

Citations

396 F. App'x 965 (4th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Formica v. Superintendent of the Cent. Va. Reg'l Jail

Accordingly, the Court construes Claim 9 as an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. Thomas v.…