Opinion
No. 15-8038
04-26-2016
MICHAEL A. DUKES, SR., a/k/a Michel A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Michael Andre Dukes, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIE L. EAGLETON; JOSHUA L. THOMAS, Assistant Attorney General; ALAN WILSON, Attorney General; JIMMY A. RICHARDSON, Respondents - Appellees.
Michel Andre Dukes, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:15-cv-04269-DCN) Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michel Andre Dukes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Dukes, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to treat Dukes' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized, and dismissing it on that basis. 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Dukes 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