Gregory Cooper v. Katy Poole ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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