Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06276/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06276-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6276

DWAIN FERRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRAD PERRITT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief

District Judge. (5:15-hc-02013-D)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwain Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6276 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwain Ferrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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

Ferrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Ferrell’s motions to appoint 

counsel and for the issuance of a subpoena, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6276 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6276 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3