Marvin Millsaps v. Lewis Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999155542-2]; denying Motion to expand certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999164109-2]; denying Motion for attorney malpractice and ineffective assistance of counsel [999168857-2], denying Motion for leave discovery materials [999173393-2], denying Motion for leave to unseal discovery materials [999180453-2], denying Motion for objection [999181450-2], denying Motion for appropriate relief [999189328-2]; denying Motion for leave to file amended complaint [999176377-2]; denying Motion to seal [999221165-2] Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00146-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999222044]. Mailed to: Marvin Millsaps. [13-7159]

Appeal: 13-7159

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7159

MARVIN W. MILLSAPS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEWIS
SMITH,
Institution,

Administrator,

Albemarle

Correctional

Respondent - Appellee,
and
BUTCH JACKSON, Administrator, Nash Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (5:12-cv-00146-RJC)

Submitted:

October 17, 2013

Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Appeal: 13-7159

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-7159

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marvin
court’s

order

petition.

W.

Millsaps

denying

relief

seeks
on

to

appeal

28

U.S.C.

his

district

§ 2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

the

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Millsaps has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Millsaps’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.

We deny as well Millsaps’s other pending

motions, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

Appeal: 13-7159

before

Doc: 23

this

court

Filed: 10/21/2013

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

4