Court Opinion

ID: 2745529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-24 19:01:52.270816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:13:01.500963
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-7145

CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

RAY COOPER,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02150-F)

Submitted:    October 21, 2014             Decided:   October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Rafael Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Casey      Rafael     Tyler     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 Tyler has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly, we

deny Tyler’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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3