Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07319/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Solomon
Appellee
Patrick Loren Towe
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7319

PATRICK LOREN TOWE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE SOLOMON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00196-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Loren Towe, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-7319 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Loren Towe seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order 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 

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

Towe’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: 14-7319 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7319 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3