George Moses v. Warden Willie Eagleton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999628303-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999621338-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999632338-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999621339-2]; denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:14-cv-02894-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999703354]. Mailed to: G. Moses. [15-7099]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7099 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7099 GEORGE NAPOLEON MOSES, a/k/a George N. Moses, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN WILLIE EAGLETON, Respondent – Appellee, and WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:14-cv-02894-RBH) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George N. Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7099 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: George Napoleon Moses seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Moses has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Moses’ motions to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 Appeal: 15-7099 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 and legal contentions are adequately 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?