Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ikeef Brailsford v. Warden Willie Eagleton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    37 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ikeef Brailsford appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Brailsford had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, so it denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7925

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ikeef Brailsford appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Brailsford had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, so it denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Ikeef Brailsford v. Warden Willie Eagleton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ikeef Brailsford appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the petition. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Brailsford had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, so it denied a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7925

    IKEEF BRAILSFORD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN WILLIE EAGLETON, Evans CI,
    Respondent Appellee,
    and
    ALAN WILSON, Attorney General of SC,
    Respondent.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.
    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (6:15-cv-01800-GRA)

    Submitted:

    April 19, 2016

    Decided:

    May 25, 2016

    Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ikeef Brailsford, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior


    Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ikeef Brailsford seeks to appeal the district courts order
    accepting

    the

    recommendation

    of

    the

    magistrate

    judge

    and

    dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.


    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    issue

    absent

    of

    appealability.

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    28

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    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
    Brailsford has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    2

    presented in the materials before this court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like