UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6435
ROBERT EARL BURNEY, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MAJOR MCRAINEY; EARL R. BUTLER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00008-NCT-LPA)
Submitted: July 30, 2012 Decided: August 7, 2012
Before AGEE, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Earl Burney, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Burney, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
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 Burney 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 deny Burney’s
motions for appointment of counsel; “Motion to Bring Formal
2
Charges of Civil Rights Violations Against Major McRainey and
Sheriff Earl R. Butler;” motion to include the State of North
Carolina as respondent; “Motion for Courts to Recognize Civil
Rights Violations by the Cumberland County Detention Center
(CCDC);” motion to include North Carolina Attorney General Roy
Cooper as respondent; motion to enter evidence; motion for
appeal; motions “for a writ of habeas corpus;” and motion for
injunctive relief. Finally, we dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3