Robert Haughie v. David Blumberg


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7465 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/05/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7465 ROBERT HAUGHIE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BLUMBERG, Chairman; ASRESAHEGN GETACHEW,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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?