Raymond Griffin v. Donnie Harrison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999847322-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999839407-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02259-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999929952].. [16-6727]

Appeal: 16-6727

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6727

RAYMOND GRIFFIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DONNIE HARRISON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02259-FL)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6727

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raymond Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and he
has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a
motion for appointment of counsel.

The district court’s order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

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

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

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
showing.

conclude

that

Griffin

has

not

made

the

requisite

Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s motion for appointment

of counsel, deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
2

We

Appeal: 16-6727

Doc: 10

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 09/15/2016

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3