Jeffrey Young-Bey v. Al Davis , 458 F. App'x 264 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6410
JEFFREY MAURICE YOUNG-BEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
AL DAVIS, Hrg Judge; FREDERICK NASTRI, Hrg Judge; BOBBY
SHEARIN,
Respondents – Appellees,
and
JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cv-02722-JFM)
Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Maurice Young-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Carroll
Bustos, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Maurice Young-Bey, a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief 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 Young-Bey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4