James Gregory Armistead v. Brad Perritt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999781145-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999787124-2]; granting Motion for leave to file [999804707-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02019-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999922310]. Mailed to: James G. Armistead SCOTLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 22385 McGirt's Bridge Road Laurinburg, NC 28353. [16-6390]

Appeal: 16-6390

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6390

JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD,
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. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02019-F)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

September 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Gregory Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.
Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6390

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James
court’s

Gregory

order

petition.

Armistead

denying

relief

seeks
on

to

appeal

28

U.S.C.

his

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
absent

“a

prisoner

§ 2254

(2012)

the

showing

of

the

denial

of

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

See 28 U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”
When

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

issue

the

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Armistead has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss
the appeal.

We construe Armistead’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint as a motion for leave to file an amended or
2

Appeal: 16-6390

Doc: 14

Filed: 09/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

supplemental informal brief on appeal, and we grant the motion.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3