Court Opinion

ID: 4526187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-16 19:00:25.364791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:29.516569
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 19-7367

JACKIE JAMES BRADY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DENNIS E. MECUM,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00933-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: April 14, 2020                                         Decided: April 16, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie James Brady, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Jackie James Brady seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Brady’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2018) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brady has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Brady’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 adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                              2