Marvin Millsaps v. Oliver Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief - to supplement [999706388-2] in 15-7601 Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00113-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765055]. Mailed to: Marvin Millsaps. [15-7594, 15-7601]

Appeal: 15-7594

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7594

MARVIN W. MILLSAPS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
OLIVER WASHINGTON,
Respondent - Appellee.

No. 15-7601

MARVIN W. MILLSAPS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
OLIVER WASHINGTON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00113-FDW; 5:15-cv-00114-FDW)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-7594

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7594

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marvin W. Millsaps seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

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
Millsaps has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
deny

Millsaps’

motion

to

supplement

and

dispense

with

We
oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

3

Appeal: 15-7594

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4