United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
August 25, 2014
United States of America,
Alvin Jerome Wise, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.
Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 106. Defendant asserts four claims for relief. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Defendant of the summary judgment procedure and the consequences if he failed to respond. Defendant responded to the Government's motion.
On July 22, 2014, the court granted summary judgment to the Government. ECF No. 115. On July 23, 2014, the court received notice from Defendant that he had not received the Government's dispositive motion and therefore could not formulate a response. ECF No. 118. Out of an abundance of caution, the court vacated its July 22 Opinion and Order and provided Defendant until August 15, 2014, to respond to the Government's motion. That time period has now expired with no further response from Defendant.
Accordingly, for the reasons previously given, the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Defendant's claims is granted. The motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is dismissed with prejudice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability... shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.