Gerald Barbaris v. Edsel Taylor , 588 F. App'x 226 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7350
GERALD PATRICK BARBARIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDSEL TAYLOR, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-00003-TMC)
Submitted: December 3, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Patrick Barbaris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Patrick Barbaris seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as
successive, and denying his motion for reconsideration.
The orders are 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 Barbaris 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
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3