Theodus Lindsay, Jr. v. Tommy Castelloe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999810054-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999795980-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00106-LCB-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999959015]. [16-6543]
Appeal: 16-6543
Doc: 13
Filed: 11/01/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6543
THEODUS LINDSAY, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TOMMY CASTELLOE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00106-LCB-JLW)
Submitted:
October 28, 2016
Decided:
November 1, 2016
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM,
JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6543
Doc: 13
Filed: 11/01/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Theodus Lindsay, Jr., 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.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28 U.S.C.
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
Lindsay has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Lindsay’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
Appeal: 16-6543
Doc: 13
adequately
Filed: 11/01/2016
presented
in
the
Pg: 3 of 3
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?