Ron Johnson v. Mike Ball

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motions to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999797316-2], [999795602-2]; and denying a certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02197-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999902289]. Mailed to: Ron Johnson. [16-6444]

Appeal: 16-6444

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6444

RON DALE JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MIKE BALL,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02197-F)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ron Dale Johnson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6444

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ron Dale Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
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.
(2012).

See 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
Johnson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

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

2

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 16-6444

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3