Opinion
No. 17-7187
01-23-2018
ORLANDO PARKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING, Respondent - Appellee.
Orlando Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:16-cv-03527-RMG) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Orlando Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Parker's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (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 Parker 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