Filed: August 24, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6214
(5:10-hc-02206-D)
CALVIN B. NELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JONATHAN MINER,
Respondent - Appellee.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed August 2, 2011, as
follows:
On the cover sheet caption, the name of “JONATHAN
MINER” is substituted for the name of “WILLIAM SCISM” as
Appellee.
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6214
CALVIN B. NELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JONATHAN MINER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:10-hc-02206-D)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin B. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin B. Nelson, a District of Columbia offender,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.
2011) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Nelson 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3