Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06592/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06592-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Will Compton
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6592

WILL COMPTON,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Joi Elizabeth Peake, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:14-cv-00328-JEP)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Will Compton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6592 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Will Compton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order 

dismissing as untimely 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny his motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the 

 * Both parties consented to the magistrate’s judge 

jurisdiction.

Appeal: 15-6592 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 15-6592 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3