Ryan Davis v. Randall Mathena

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998810751-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998815605-2]; denying for certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00501-AWA-FBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998869311]. Mailed to: Ryan O'Neal Davis. [12-6270]

Appeal: 12-6270

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6270

RYAN O’NEAL DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RANDALL C. MATHENA, Chief Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00501-AWA-FBS)

Submitted:

May 31, 2012

Decided:

June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan O’Neal Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6270

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ryan O’Neal Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition
without

prejudice

based

on

Davis’

required copies of his petition.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

failure

to

provide

the

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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 Davis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
motion

to

appoint

counsel.

We
2

dispense

We also deny Davis’
with

oral

argument

Appeal: 12-6270

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

DISMISSED

3