Court Opinion

ID: 2969095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 09:13:57.812016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:19.693184
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-6005

JOSEPH DIXON MIDYETTE,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

FRANK PERRY,

                       Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02111-BO)

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

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Dixon Midyette, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Joseph Dixon Midyette seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing       as     untimely      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

Midyette 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 also deny Midyette’s

motion    to     assign       counsel.        We    dispense        with        oral    argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

                                              2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

                                                    DISMISSED

                              3