Theola Saunders v. David Millis ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6744
    THEOLA ANTONIO SAUNDERS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID MILLIS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02248-D)
    Submitted: September 26, 2019                                     Decided: October 1, 2019
    Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Theola Antonio Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Theola Antonio Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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. See 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
    .
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-6744

Filed Date: 10/1/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/1/2019