Court Opinion

ID: 614813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-05 19:45:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:31.348865
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6475

JOHNATHAN SEYMORE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

JOSEPH HALL,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02169-FL)

Submitted:   September 29, 2011           Decided:   October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Seymore, Appellant Pro Se.   Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Johnathan Seymore seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006).             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) (2006).                   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 Seymore has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny    Seymore’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     contentions       are    adequately          presented      in    the

                                             2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3