Travis McFadden v. Reuben Young

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999231064-2]. Originating case number: 5:12-hc-02205-F. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999307757]. Mailed to: Travis McFadden. [13-7650]

Appeal: 13-7650

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7650

TRAVIS J. MCFADDEN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
REUBEN YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02205-F)

Submitted:

February 27, 2014

Decided:

March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis J. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7650

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Travis

J.

McFadden

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition

and

court’s

order

orders

are

issues

a

denying
denying

not

his

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

absent

“a

motion
motion
unless
of

appoint

for
a

counsel

and

reconsideration.

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

the
The

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

to

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 McFadden has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 13-7650

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3