Nekita White v. Department of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999337552-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999330766-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00804-TSE-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999404861].. [14-6480]

Appeal: 14-6480

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6480

NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00804-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted:

July 24, 2014

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 29, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Thomas Judge,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6480

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nekita
court’s

order

petition.

Antonio

denying

White

relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
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) (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 White has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny White’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-6480

Doc: 16

contentions

are

Filed: 07/29/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3