Willie Morrison v. Warden, Lieber Correctional
Willie Morrison v. Warden, Lieber Correctional
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7068
WILLIE MORRISON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-02593-DCN)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Willie Morrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254(2012) petition. 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). 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 Morrison 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished