Court Opinion

ID: 4377129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-03-14 19:00:16.930855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:38.915933
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 18-7437

JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

SUPERINTENDENT MILLIS,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02063-BO)

Submitted: March 8, 2019                                          Decided: March 14, 2019

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Gregory Armistead seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice as successive. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Armistead has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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