Myron Roderick Nunn v. Felix Taylor
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02129-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680388]. Mailed to: Nunn. [15-6794]
Appeal: 15-6794
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/19/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6794
MYRON RODERICK NUNN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02129-D)
Submitted:
October 15, 2015
Decided:
October 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
Appellee.
Peter Andrew Regulski,
North
Carolina,
for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6794
Doc: 9
Filed: 10/19/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
dismissing
petition.
or
judge
as
untimely
28
U.S.C.
§ 2254
(2012)
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
his
absent
“a
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
of
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
Nunn has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense
of
with
appealability
oral
argument
and
dismiss
because
2
Accordingly, we deny a
the
the
appeal.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 15-6794
Doc: 9
contentions
Filed: 10/19/2015
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?