From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. McFadden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 15, 2015
609 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 15-6234

07-15-2015

DONOVAN HENDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Donovan Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:14-cv-00511-TMC) Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donovan Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Donovan Henderson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 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 Henderson 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


Summaries of

Henderson v. McFadden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 15, 2015
609 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Henderson v. McFadden

Case Details

Full title:DONOVAN HENDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 15, 2015

Citations

609 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

Stoudenmire v. Warden, Perry Corr. Inst.

"To establish ineffective assistance of counsel on conflict of interest grounds, a petitioner must establish…

Lopez v. United States

Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. See United States v. Escobar-Lopez, 609 F. App'x 160 (4th…