Gerald Barbaris v. Edsel Taylor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999452929-2] Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00003-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999495919]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-7350]

Appeal: 14-7350

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7350

GERALD PATRICK BARBARIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDSEL TAYLOR, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-00003-TMC)

Submitted:

December 3, 2014

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

December 18, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Patrick Barbaris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7350

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gerald Patrick Barbaris seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as
successive, and denying his motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

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 Barbaris 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: 14-7350

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/18/2014

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