Casey Tyler v. North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02191-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000328137]. Mailed to: Casey Tyler. [18-6195]

Appeal: 18-6195

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/12/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6195

CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA,
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-02191-FL)

Submitted: July 6, 2018

Decided: July 12, 2018

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Rafael Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6195

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/12/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Casey Rafael Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 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 Tyler has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

2