Jimmy Reid v. Donald Mobley

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7535

JIMMY REID,

Petitioner - Appellant,

DONALD MOBLEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00029-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 16, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on 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)

(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

Reid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Reid’s motion for leave

to conduct discovery, deny his motion for a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED