Court Opinion

ID: 2820938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-28 19:02:19.244446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:15.132958
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6683

RAY LEE ROSS,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WENDELL HARGRAVE,

                       Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland Biggs,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01301-LCB-LPA)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                  Decided:   July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Lee Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney
General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ray Lee Ross 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

Ross 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 presented

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

decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3