Opinion
No. 18-7529
09-06-2019
DERRICK LAMAR CHEEKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALFORD JOYNER, Respondent - Appellee.
Eduardo K. Curry, CURRY LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:17-cv-02876-DCC) Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eduardo K. Curry, CURRY LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lamar Cheeks seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Cheeks 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.
We note with disapproval that the brief filed by petitioner's attorney in this court is almost a verbatim copy of the objection to the magistrate's report that petitioner filed, pro se, in the district court. We further note that the single original argument in the brief (relating to the search warrant at issue in this case) has no basis in the record or in law. --------
DISMISSED