Opinion
No. 17-7209 No. 17-7259
05-03-2018
NATHANIEL TEAMER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SCOTT LEWIS, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee, and BRYAN STIRLING, Commissioner South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, BLUME, FRANKLIN-BEST & YOUNG, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (6:16-cv-03339-PMD; 6:16-cv-03340-PMD) Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, BLUME, FRANKLIN-BEST & YOUNG, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Teamer seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. 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 Teamer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. 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