Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07886/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07886-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7886

ROBERT JAMES PETRICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA O. THORNTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:09-cv-00551-LPA)

Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 10, 2015

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert James Petrick, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Mary Carla Babb, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7886 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Petrick seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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. 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 

Petrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Petrick’s motions 

 * The parties consented to proceeding to final judgment 

before a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) 

(2012). 

Appeal: 14-7886 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

for appointment of counsel and for 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

Appeal: 14-7886 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 3