Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • James Matthews v. Levern Cohen, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Matthews' appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice. The appellate court denied Matthews a certificate of appealability, finding he had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. The appellate court concluded Matthews was not entitled to appeal the district court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-09-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6584

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Matthews' appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice. The appellate court denied Matthews a certificate of appealability, finding he had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. The appellate court concluded Matthews was not entitled to appeal the district court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views3 pages

    James Matthews v. Levern Cohen, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Matthews' appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice. The appellate court denied Matthews a certificate of appealability, finding he had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. The appellate court concluded Matthews was not entitled to appeal the district court's decision and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6584

    JAMES MATTHEWS,
    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    LEVERN COHEN,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
    (4:12-cv-01407-MGL)

    Submitted:

    August 29, 2013

    Decided:

    September 4, 2013

    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Matthews seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing

    his

    prejudice.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

    or

    judge

    28

    issues

    U.S.C.

    absent

    2254

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
    issue

    petition

    appealability.

    without

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    of

    (2006)

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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 Matthews 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

    You might also like