Robert Haughie v. David Blumberg , 684 F. App'x 302 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7465
ROBERT HAUGHIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BLUMBERG, Chairman; ASRESAHEGN GETACHEW, M.D.; YONAS
SISAY, M.D.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(1:16-cv-03201-JFM)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: April 5, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robert Haughie, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Haughie, a state prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief in Haughie’s action seeking medical
parole and damages. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
To the extent that Haughie seeks medical parole, the district
court’s denial of relief 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
Haughie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.
2
As to Haughie’s appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of his claims for monetary damages, we have reviewed the record
and find that Haughie failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to
relief. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district
court’s order. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3