Grady v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety

Full title: BOBBY RAY GRADY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 5, 2018

No. 18-6142 (4th Cir. Jul. 5, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-6142

07-05-2018

BOBBY RAY GRADY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent - Appellee.

Bobby Ray Grady, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02100-FL) Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Ray Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Bobby Ray Grady seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Rule 59(e) motions in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding. 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 Grady has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Grady's motions to incorporate documents and for a transcript as moot. We further deny Grady's motion to inspect the record. 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.

DISMISSED