Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07580/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07580-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn G. Fraley
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7580

SHAWN G. FRALEY,

 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. (1:14-cv-00947-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn G. Fraley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7580 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn G. Fraley seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

Fraley’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 15-7580 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7580 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 3