Jimmy Gallishaw, Jr. v. Warden
Jimmy Gallishaw, Jr. v. Warden
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6506
JIMMY GALLISHAW, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (9:18-cv-03253-SAL)
Submitted: March 19, 2021 Decided: April 1, 2021
Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Gallishaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Gallishaw, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gallishaw’s
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. 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 Gallishaw has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Gallishaw’s motion to remand and 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- Unpublished