# Travis Brown v. Warden McCall

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 29, 2014 · 585 F. App'x 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2746533

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert W. DOUGHERTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Samuel v. PRUETT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 29, 2014
- **Citations:** 585 F. App'x 108
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Shedd, Duncan, Floyd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2746533

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6933

TRAVIS R. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN MCCALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:13-cv-02018-DCN)

Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: October 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis R. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Travis R. Brown 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 (2012) 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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Brown 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

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2746533. Public record. Not legal advice.