Matthew Dustin Perry v. Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7375
MATTHEW DUSTIN PERRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
WARDEN STAN BURTT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:10-cv-02436-RBH)
Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Dustin Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, John
William McIntosh, Assistant Attorneys General, Alan Wilson,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Dustin Perry 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 (2006)
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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Perry 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

-- 3 of 4 --

4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --