George Carter v. Brick Tripp
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000285131-2]. Originating case number: 5:17-hc-02009-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000334978]. Mailed to: George E. Carter. [18-6350]
Appeal: 18-6350
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6350
GEORGE CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRICK TRIPP, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-hc-02009-FL)
Submitted: July 19, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Decided: July 24, 2018
Appeal: 18-6350
Doc: 10
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
George Carter, a D.C. Code Offender, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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) (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 Carter 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 in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
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?