John Baccus v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 11-7277 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7277 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Petitioner Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Institution, Warden of McCormick Correctional Respondent Appellee, and THE STATE, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (9:11-cv-01754-DCN) Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John court s judge Roosevelt Baccus order accepting the and denying successive. justice or his 28 The order issues a to appeal recommendation U.S.C. is judge seeks not § 2254 of the (2006) appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). of the district magistrate petition unless a as circuit appealability. 28 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 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baccus 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 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
