Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06005/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Dixon Midyette
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6005

JOSEPH DIXON MIDYETTE,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02111-BO)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Dixon Midyette, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6005 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Dixon Midyette seeks to appeal the district court’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 

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 also deny Midyette’s 

motion to assign counsel. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 15-6005 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6005 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3