United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Columbia Division
February 3, 2015
United States of America,
David Player, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN, CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant raises a variety of grounds 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. On October 31, 2014, Defendant sought an extension of time to file a response. ECF No. 281. The court granted Defendant’s motion and extended the time for response through January 23, 2015. Defendant has not responded to the Government’s motion and the time for doing so has expired.
For the reasons argued by the Government in its response in opposition to Defendant’s motion, with which the court agrees and adopts as its findings, the Government is entitled to summary judgment.
The Government’s motion for summary judgment is granted and Defendant’s motion for relief 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.