Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07020/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07020-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7020

JOSEPH K. RAGLAND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MIKE BALL; FRANK L. PERRY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02206-FL)

Submitted: March 13, 2017 Decided: March 21, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph K. Ragland, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7020 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph K. Ragland 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. 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 

Ragland has not made the requisite showing. 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 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 16-7020 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7020 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 3 of 3