Dale Green v. Warden Frank Bishop

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02342-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999327343]. Mailed to: Green. [13-8048]

Appeal: 13-8048

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8048

DALE WALLACE GREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FRANK J. BISHOP,
Defendant – Appellee,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02342-WMN)

Submitted:

March 27, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit
Circuit Judges.

Judge,

Decided:

and

HAMILTON

and

April 1, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale Wallace Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-8048

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dale Wallace Green appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

as

unauthorized

his

successive

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice

issues

or

judge

a

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
369 (4th Cir. 2004).
issue

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

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 Green has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately
2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-8048

before

Doc: 5

this

Filed: 04/01/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3