Robert Haughie v. David Blumberg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-03201-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000056282]. Mailed to: Robert D. Haughie MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - JESSUP P. O. Box 549 Jessup, MD 20794-0000. [16-7465]

Appeal: 16-7465

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7465

ROBERT HAUGHIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BLUMBERG, Chairman; ASRESAHEGN GETACHEW, M.D.; YONAS
SISAY, M.D.,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(1:16-cv-03201-JFM)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

April 5, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Robert Haughie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7465

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert

Haughie,

a

state

prisoner,

appeals

the

district

court’s order denying relief in Haughie’s action seeking medical
parole and damages.

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

To the extent that Haughie seeks medical parole, the district
court’s denial of relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or

judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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
Haughie has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.

2

Appeal: 16-7465

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

As to Haughie’s appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of his claims for monetary damages, we have reviewed the record
and find that Haughie failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to
relief.

Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district

court’s order.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3