Duane Harrison v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6774
DUANE HARRISON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner South Carolina Department of Corrections;
KEVIN FORD, Acting Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cv-02373-CMC)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Walters, Sr., LAW OFFICE OF GLENN WALTERS, PA, Orangeburg, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Duane Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. He also seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 could find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).
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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,
140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison 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 before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --