Opinion
No. 17-7022
05-18-2018
CASEY JENKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHN R. PATE, Respondent - Appellee.
Casey Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:15-cv-02241-JMC) Before KING, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Casey Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Jenkins' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and denying Jenkins' subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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