Mullins v. S.C. Attorney Gen.

Full title: BRADLEY GERALD MULLINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 20, 2020

No. 20-6983 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020)

Opinion

No. 20-6983

11-20-2020

BRADLEY GERALD MULLINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees.

Bradley Gerald Mullins, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (0:19-cv-03017-SAL) Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley Gerald Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Bradley Gerald Mullins seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Mullin'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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Mullins 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