Vazquez v. Cartledge, 693 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
Vazquez v. Cartledge, 693 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Juan Carlos VAZQUEZ
v.
Warden Leroy CARTLEDGE, and Attorney Gen Alan Wilson
No. 17-6429.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 25, 2017.
Unpublished opinion
693 F. App'x 256
Juan Carlos Vazquez, Appellant Pro Se. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Duncan, Hamilton, Wynn.
Published

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Vazquez 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, and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable un[*257]less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vazquez 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