Court Opinion

ID: 2803056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-22 19:02:12.865923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:29.455506
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-6448

STEVE D. MORRISON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00093-FDW)

Submitted:   May 19, 2015                  Decided:   May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Steve Morrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing       his     28    U.S.C.        § 2254    (2012)          petition     as     an

unauthorized successive 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

Morrison 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 dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3