United States v. Timothy Murphy ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LAFON MURPHY, a/k/a TJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00241-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00287-FL)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Lafon Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley,
Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Lafon Murphy seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion, and denying his motion to reopen final judgment filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Murphy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
2
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.
DISMISSED
3