Nathaniel Murray v. Warden Stephan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6357
NATHANIEL MURRAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STEPHAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-00960-TLW)
Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Murray, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Murray 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.
Based on the arguments presented in his informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and
his failure to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on one ground after
receiving proper notice, see Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017), we
conclude that Murray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --