David Raman, Jr. v. Frank Perry ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6793
DAVID DWIGHT RAMAN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00248-LCB-JEP)
Submitted: September 3, 2015 Decided: October 13, 2015
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Dwight Raman, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
David Dwight Raman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
deny 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
Raman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Raman’s motion for transcript at government expense, deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
appealability, 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