Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07685/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07685-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodore Morris Foust
Appellant
George T. Solomon
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7685

THEODORE MORRIS FOUST,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE T. 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-00819-CCE-JLW)

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

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Morris Foust, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7685 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Morris Foust seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying as successive 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 Foust has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Foust’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny him 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7685 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/02/2015 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: 14-7685 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3