Rodney Pitts v. Frank Bishop, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999974796-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01493-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: R Pitts. [16-7468]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY WILLIAM PITTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
FRANK BISHOP, JR.; BRIAN E. FROSH, The Attorney General of the
State of Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
January 31, 2017
February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney William Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Rodney William Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely 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)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Pitts has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny 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 adequately presented
Pg: 3 of 3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
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?