Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07927/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07927-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the United States
Appellee
Terrence W. Boyle
Appellee
Joseph Dixon Midyette
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7927

JOSEPH DIXON MIDYETTE,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TERRENCE W. BOYLE, Judge; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondents - Appellees.

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-02108)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Dixon Midyette, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7927 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Dixon Midyette seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as 

successive and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration. 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. 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 

Midyette 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 

Appeal: 15-7927 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7927 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3