-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6802 GREGORY COOPER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KATY POOLE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cv-00496-WO-JLW) Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019 Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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. See Buck v. Davis,
137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Cooper’s informal brief, we conclude that Cooper has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 19-6802
Filed Date: 8/23/2019
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/23/2019