Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06752/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06752-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick Javon Lindsey
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6752

DERRICK JAVON LINDSEY, a/k/a Derrick Javon Lindsey El Bey,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00020-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Javon Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6752 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as late his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 

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 

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

his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-6752 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/24/2015 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: 15-6752 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3