Michael Gaddy v. Harold Reep
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999934904-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00045-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Michael Gaddy. [16-7177]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. GADDY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00045-FDW)
January 31, 2017
February 9, 2017
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Michael A. Gaddy seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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).
When the district court denies
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Gaddy has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?