Opinion
22-7098
03-24-2023
ERIC ANCRUM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of the SCDC; WARDEN RAFAEL VERGARA, of CoreCivic, Respondents - Appellees.
Tristan Michael Shaffer, ADAMS &BISCHOFF, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-04264-DCC)
Tristan Michael Shaffer, ADAMS &BISCHOFF, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Eric Ancrum seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ancrum's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ancrum 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