Matthew S. Harris v. MR. WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional Institution SCDC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6359
MATTHEW S. HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MR. WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution SCDC; SC ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-03462-DCN)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew S. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Matthew S. Harris, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West
2006 & Supp. 2013) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are
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 Harris has not made the requisite showing. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --