Marvin Millsaps v. Wendall Hargrave

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7042 MARVIN W. MILLSAPS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WENDALL HARGRAVE, Temporary Acting Administrator, Alexander Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00064-FDW) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin W. Millsaps, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marvin W. Millsaps seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 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 Millsaps has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Millsaps’ motions for leave to depose, motion to bring in third-party defendants, and motion for more definite statement. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3