Dwain Ferrell v. Brad Perritt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for issuance of subpoena [999771809-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999771788-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02013-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999804258]. Mailed to: D Ferrell. [16-6276]

Appeal: 16-6276

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6276

DWAIN FERRELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRAD PERRITT,
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. (5:15-hc-02013-D)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwain Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6276

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dwain Ferrell 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
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 (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
Ferrell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny Ferrell’s motions to appoint
counsel and for the issuance of a subpoena, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-6276

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3