Damon Lemont Jackson v. DENNIS BUSH, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6279
DAMON LEMONT JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS BUSH, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-03380-MGL)
Submitted: July 31, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Lemont Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Damon Lemont Jackson 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 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). 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). 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
Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Jackson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --