Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06543/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06543-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6543

THEODUS LINDSAY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TOMMY CASTELLOE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00106-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, 

JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6543 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Theodus Lindsay, Jr., 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 

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

Lindsay’s motion for 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 

Appeal: 16-6543 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6543 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3